Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Darryl KEYES, a/k/a Red, a/k/a Dun Dun, Defendant - Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-15
Citations: 142 F. App'x 791
Docket Number: No. 05-4321
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Darryl KEYES, a/k/a Red, a/k/a Dun Dun, Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 142
Pages: 791–792

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Darryl KEYES, a/k/a Red, a/k/a Dun Dun, Defendant — Appellant.
No. 05-4321.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 24, 2005.
Decided Sept. 15, 2005.
Dennis H. Curry, Spencer, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, John J. Frail, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Darryl Keyes appeals the district court's order granting the Government's motion to reduce his sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b) and reducing his sentence. We conclude Keyes' claim under United States v. Booker, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), challenging his original sentence is not properly before us in this appeal. A final judgment is one in which the judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for petitioning the Supreme Court for certiorari has expired. Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255, 258 n. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2878, 92 L.Ed.2d 199 (1986). A later modification to a sentence does not affect the date on which the judgment of conviction became final. See United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 143 (4th Cir.2001). To the extent Keyes seeks to attack his original sentencing order under Booker, we are without jurisdiction to consider it because Keyes never appealed that order. Keyes may not revive his appeal from his original sentencing by appealing his reduced sentence imposed following a Rule 35(b) proceeding. To the extent Keyes attacks the reduced sentence, we find no violation of Booker.
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court. 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