Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Jermaine KEITT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-10
Citations: 382 F. App'x 295
Docket Number: No. 10-6143
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Jermaine KEITT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 382
Pages: 295–296

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Jermaine KEITT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-6143.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 1, 2010.
Decided: June 10, 2010.
Charles Jermaine Keitt, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley Duane Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Jermaine Keitt appeals the district court's order denying his Fed. R.Crim.P. 36 motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. United States v. Keitt, No. 5:07-cr-01020-MBS-1 (D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2010). Additionally, Keitt seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. Keitt's notice of appeal as to the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion was untimely; however, the Government has not sought to invoke Fed. R.App. P. 4(b) against Keitt. Therefore, we may consider the district court's order denying Keitt's § 3582(c)(2) motion. United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744 (10th Cir.2008); see Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 208-13, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007) (noting that appeal periods in criminal cases are not jurisdictional; rather, they are "claim-processing rules" adopted by the Supreme Court that do not affect this court's subject-matter jurisdiction). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Keitt, No. 5:07-cr-01020-MBS-1 (D.S.C. May 8, 2010). 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.
AFFIRMED.