Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard M. PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-11-19
Citations: 22 F. App'x 163
Docket Number: No. 01-6707
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard M. PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 163–164

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.