United States v. Ersel Stollings
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge.
The question is whether the district court loses jurisdiction to act upon a motion for reduction of a sentence under Rule 35, Fed.R.Crim.P., at the expiration of the applicable 120 day period, though a motion for such reduction had been filed within that time period. We hold that jurisdiction is not lost under such circumstances, at least for so long as the judge reasonably needs time to consider and act upon the motion.
Rule 35 provides in pertinent part:
“The court may reduce a sentence within 120 days after the sentence is imposed, or within 120 days after receipt by…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- United States v. MayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- United States v. PolizziCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
- Hume v. BowieSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Enrique Reyes Leyvas v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1967
- United States v. Lawrence Janiec, in No. 74-1281 Appeal of Samuel Laytham, in No. 74-1282Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by82 opinions
- State v. HeadWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1996
- Houlihan v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1979
- United States v. Gordon WalgrenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- United States v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- Alfred B. Diggs v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
77 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.