Case Name: UNITED STATES of America v. David W. MITCHELL, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-28
Citations: 271 F. App'x 239
Docket Number: No. 07-2174
Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. David W. MITCHELL, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 239–239

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America v. David W. MITCHELL, Appellant.
No. 07-2174.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 Nov. 8, 2007.
Filed March 28, 2008.
Robert L. Eberhardt, Office of United States Attorney, Pittsburgh, PA, for United States of America.
David W. Mitchell, Cresson, PA, pro se.
Before: BARRY, CHAGARES and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
David Mitchell appeals the District Court's order denying his motion filed pursuant to Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. On April 28, 2005, the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania sentenced Mitchell to ninety-six months in prison based on his plea of guilty to burglary of a federal firearms licensee. On January 31, 2007, Mitchell filed a Rule 35(a) motion. The District Court denied the motion as untimely, and Mitchell filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Under Rule 35(a), the District Court "may correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error" within seven days after sentencing. Mitchell filed his Rule 35(a) motion nearly two years after sentencing. Thus, we agree with the District Court that the motion was untimely.
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.