Case ID: f-appx_382/html/0295-01.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. Charles Jermaine KEITT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-6143.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 1, 2010.
    Decided: June 10, 2010.
    Charles Jermaine Keitt, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley Duane Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Jermaine Keitt appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Crim.P. 36 motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. United States v. Keitt, No. 5:07-cr-01020-MBS-1 (D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2010). Additionally, Keitt seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. Keitt’s notice of appeal as to the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion was untimely; however, the Government has not sought to invoke Fed. R.App. P. 4(b) against Keitt. Therefore, we may consider the district court’s order denying Keitt’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744 (10th Cir.2008); see Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 208-13, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007) (noting that appeal periods in criminal cases are not jurisdictional; rather, they are “claim-processing rules” adopted by the Supreme Court that do not affect this court’s subject-matter jurisdiction). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Keitt, No. 5:07-cr-01020-MBS-1 (D.S.C. May 8, 2010). 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.

AFFIRMED.