USA v. Royce Newton, No. 16-11670 (5th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-11670 Document: 00514238677 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-11670 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 15, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROYCE NEWTON, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15-CR-234-1 Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Royce Newton, federal prisoner # 25725-177, pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to the statutory maximum sentence of 120 months of imprisonment. Proceeding pro se, Newton challenges the district court’s denial of the Government’s motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b)(1). He also moves for appointment of counsel. Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 16-11670 Document: 00514238677 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/15/2017 No. 16-11670 As Newton acknowledges, he did not file a timely notice of appeal following the district court’s October 13, 2016 order denying the Government’s Rule 35(b)(1) motion. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). Newton’s pro se motion requesting the district court to reconsider its denial of the Government’s Rule 35(b)(1) motion was filed more than 14 days after entry of the district court’s October 13, 2016 order. Thus, Newton’s pro se motion cannot serve as a motion to reconsider that judgment. See United States v Greenwood, 974 F.2d 1449, 1466 (5th Cir. 1992). Thus, to the extent that Newton appeals the denial of his pro se motion, he “has appealed from the denial of a meaningless, unauthorized motion” that had no jurisdictional basis. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Because a timely notice of appeal is not a jurisdictional prerequisite in criminal cases, see United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 388-89 (5th Cir. 2007), we can review the underlying order denying the Government’s Rule 35(b)(1) motion. However, Newton has failed to show that the district court’s decision was illegal “or a gross abuse of discretion.” See United States v. Nerren, 613 F.2d 572, 573 (5th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Newton’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 2