Court Opinion

ID: 9403960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 21:00:50.110873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:10.113159
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7278      Doc: 9        Filed: 06/20/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7278

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JERMAINE OTEASO OGATDES BENNETT, a/k/a Jermaine Oteaso Bennett,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:10-cr-00210-TDS-1)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                            Decided: June 20, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jermaine Oteaso Ogatdes Bennett, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7278      Doc: 9         Filed: 06/20/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Jermaine Oteaso Ogatdes Bennett seeks to appeal the district court’s October 12,

        2022, order denying the portion of his supplemented motion construed as filed under

        18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) for a sentence reduction pursuant to § 404(b) of the First Step

        Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. Bennett filed a notice of appeal

        on October 26, 2022. 1 On appeal, Bennett suggests that the district court recharacterize his

        pending motion as a motion for reconsideration of the denial order and requests that this

        court either stay the proceedings until the district court rules on his motion or remand his

        case to the district court. We remand to the district court.

               Upon reviewing the record, we conclude that Bennett’s pending “Movant’s Pro Se

        Motion for a downward vari[a]nce to the five[-]year mandatory minimum/Objections to

        PSR dkt # 96” should have been liberally construed as a motion to reconsider the district

        court’s denial order. See Sanford v. Clarke, 52 F.4th 582, 587 (4th Cir. 2022) (“Pro se

        filings are to be construed liberally.”). Although “the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

        do not specifically provide for motions for reconsideration and prescribe the time in which

        they must be filed,” Nilson Van & Storage Co. v. Marsh, 755 F.2d 362, 364 (4th Cir. 1985),

        a would be appellant who files a reconsideration motion in a criminal case 2 within the

               1
                See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (holding that a pro se prisoner’s
        notice of appeal is considered filed the moment it is delivered to prison authorities for
        mailing to the court).

               See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235 n.* (4th Cir. 2010) (“[ Section]
               2

        3582 motions . . . are criminal in nature.”).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7278       Doc: 9         Filed: 06/20/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        original period in which an appeal is permitted is entitled to the full time period for noticing

        the appeal after the motion to reconsider has been decided, see United States v. Ibarra, 502

        U.S. 1, 4 n. 2 (1991); United States v. Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 767 n. 1 (4th Cir. 1993). Here,

        Bennett filed his motion construed as one for reconsideration on October 13, 2022, and the

        district court docketed the motion on October 20, 2022, within the allowed appeal period.

        See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A), (b)(4).        Accordingly, Bennett’s notice of appeal is

        premature.

               Because Bennett’s notice of appeal will not be effective until the district court

        disposes of the motion to reconsider, we are constrained to remand this case so that the

        district court may rule on the motion for reconsideration. The parties should inform this

        Court when the district court has ruled and provide a copy of the order disposing of the

        motion to reconsider. 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.

                                                                                         REMANDED

                                                       3