Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William D. LONGENETTE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-12-06
Citations: 24 F. App'x 138
Docket Number: No. 01-7234
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William D. LONGENETTE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 24
Pages: 138–139

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William D. LONGENETTE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-7234.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 29, 2001.
Decided Dec. 6, 2001.
William D. Longenette, pro se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, WV, for appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
William D. Longenette appeals from the district court's March 7, 2001, order denying relief on his claims regarding his fine and incarceration and the court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. We dismiss the appeal from the March 7, 2001, order for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed beyond the sixty-day appeal period. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1). Regarding the district court's order denying Longenette's Rule 60(b) motion, we have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Longenette, No. CR-90-136 (N.D.W.Va. July 9, 2001); United States v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 313 (4th Cir.1982). 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 IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART.
The motion to expedite the appeal, filed on November 29, 2001, became moot on the filing of this opinion and, accordingly, is dismissed.