Case ID: f-appx_549/html/0061-01.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 v. Concetta JACKSON, Appellant.
    No. 13-4022.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted for Possible Dismissal due to Untimeliness or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 Dec. 19, 2013.
    Opinion filed: Jan. 9, 2014.
    
      Michelle Rotella, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA, for United States of America.
    Concetta Jackson, Danbury, CT, pro se.
    Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Concetta Jackson appeals the District Court’s order denying her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. For the reasons below, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.

In September 2008, Concetta Jackson pleaded guilty to one count of using a minor to produce visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct. She waived her right to appeal or challenge her conviction or sentence in her plea agreement. She was subsequently sentenced to 300 months. Despite her waiver, she filed a direct appeal, a § 2255 motion, and an application for permission to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. All were unsuccessful.

In August 2013, Jackson filed a motion to withdraw her guilty plea. By order entered August 26, 2013, the District Court denied the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Jackson filed a notice of appeal dated September 18, 2013.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. While it appears that Jackson’s notice of appeal from the August 26th order was not timely filed, she argues that she should be excused from timely filing. Because the fourteen-day time limit of Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A) is not jurisdictional and the Government has not moved to enforce the time bar, we will not dismiss the appeal for untimeliness. See Gov’t of the V.I. v. Martinez, 620 F.3d 321, 327-29 (3d Cir.2010).

The District Court thoroughly addressed Jackson’s motion in its August 26th order. It noted that Jackson had already challenged her conviction and sentence with a direct appeal and a § 2255 motion and correctly concluded that she may no longer file a motion to withdraw her guilty plea. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e).

Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6.