Opinion ID: 3015610
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The District Court’s initial order denying relief was entered Friday, February 11, 2005. As several of our sister courts have held, a § 3582(c)(2) motion is considered a continuation of the criminal proceedings against a defendant; thus, the ten-day period for filing a notice of appeal applies. See, e.g., United States v. Espinosa-Talamantes, 319 F.3d 1245, 1246 (10th Cir. 2003); United States v. Arrango, 291 F.3d 170, 171 (2d Cir. 2002); Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). The ten-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional. United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 224 (1960); United States v. Grana, 864 F.2d 2 312, 314 (3d Cir. 1989). Benanti filed a notice of appeal dated March 21, 2005. However, Benanti filed a motion for reconsideration. If his motion was timely, then the time for appeal was extended until 10 days after the order denying the reconsideration motion was entered. A motion for reconsideration of an order affecting the final judgment in a criminal case is timely filed if made within the period allotted for the noticing of an appeal; i.e., within 10 days. United States v. Cook, 670 F.2d 46, 48 (5 th Cir. 1982). Benanti’s motion for reconsideration was not filed within 10 days of the February 11 th order. Nevertheless, in United States v. Grana, 864 F.2d 312, 316 (3d Cir. 1989), this Court held that “in computing the timeliness of pro se prisoners’ appeals, any prison delay in transmitting to the prisoner the notice of the District Court’s final order shall be excluded from the computation of an appellant’s time for taking an appeal.” According to Benanti’s motion for reconsideration, he did not receive the February 11, 2005 order until March 1, 2005, because prison officials delayed in forwarding the order to the proper prison. Applying Grana to exclude prison delay from the computation of the time to file his motion for reconsideration, the motion for reconsideration was timely. Benanti’s notice of appeal was filed within 10 days of the District Court’s March 15, 2005 order denying his motion for reconsideration, and is thus also timely.