Case ID: f-appx_22/html/0163-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard M. PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-6707.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 24, 2001.
    Decided Nov. 19, 2001.
    Jack R. Maro, Ocala, FL, for appellant. Kenneth E. Melson, United States Attorney, William H. Stallings, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for appellee.
    
      Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Richard M. Patterson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the motion because it was filed beyond the time period allowed under the Rule. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 33; see also United States v. Smith, 62 F.3d 641, 648 (4th Cir.1995) (holding that time limits set forth in Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 are jurisdictional). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1994). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.