Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01295/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01295-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Ray Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1295

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Jeffrey Ray Johnson, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 23, 2005

Filed: September 2, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Johnson challenges the sentence imposed by the district court1

 after he

pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit mail fraud. In the judgment entered on

November 29, 2004, the district court noted that Johnson had not submitted certain

required financial information to the probation office; the district court stated that

when this information was reviewed, the court would consider instituting a payment

plan for Johnson’s restitution, and imposing a fine, by supplemental order. In its

supplemental order the district court declined to impose a fine or change the amount

Appellate Case: 05-1295 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2005 Entry ID: 1947574
-2-

of restitution but set a payment schedule for the restitution previously ordered. The

supplement was issued on January 10, 2005, and Johnson filed his notice of appeal

on January 20.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because Johnson’s notice of

appeal was not filed within 10 days of the November 29 entry of judgment. See Fed.

R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i) (in criminal case, defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed

within 10 days after entry of judgment); United States v. Austin, 217 F.3d 595, 597

(8th Cir. 2000) (timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional). The

supplement to the judgment did not start the time for appeal running anew, because

the supplement did not substantially change the substance of the original judgment

or disturb Johnson’s legal rights: the restitution and fine amount were not changed,

and on appeal Johnson is not challenging the substance of the supplement. See Fed.

Trade Comm’n v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 344 U.S. 206, 211-12

(1952) (fact that previously entered judgment has been revised in immaterial way

does not toll time for appeal; question is whether second order disturbed or revised

legal rights which had been settled with finality by prior judgment); United States v.

1,431.80 Acres of Land, 466 F.2d 820, 822 (8th Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (district

court’s retention of jurisdiction for future ministerial orders does not affect finality

of original order).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1295 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2005 Entry ID: 1947574