US v. Brantley: Brantley pleaded guilty to drug and firearm charges and at sentencing was told by the district court that he would be “subject to the standard conditions of supervised release” in the district, but the written judgment “contained several special conditions of supervised release not mentioned in the oral pronouncement” that “were no minor alterations.” Under the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Rogers, this was error.
Brantley filed a notice of appeal 223 days after the entry of judgment. The Government moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely and the Fourth Circuit agreed and dismissed the appeal. The court noted that the time limits in Rule 4 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure are not jurisdictional and can be waived if not timely raised, but the Government raised the matter here. Because the time limits are “not subject to equitable extension” and the court must “strictly apply them” once invoked, dismissal was required. The nature of the alleged error did not make a difference. Even though conditions like the one at issue might be “nullities” it “does not make the written judgment entered here invalid.”
No comments:
Post a Comment