UNITED STATES v. BRAXTON (2019)

Savino Braxton appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of its November 3, 2015, order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for new trial.^* “[A] motion to reconsider the denial of a new trial under [Rule] 33 must be filed within the time allotted for appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b).” United States v. Randall, 666 F.3d 1238, 1242 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). The relevant time period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b) is 14 days. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1). Braxton filed his motion on August 14, 2017, well outside this period. Accordingly, it was untimely.

We therefore affirm the decision of the district court. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately set forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   In its order, the district court also ruled on several other matters. Because Braxton's informal brief addresses only the ruling on the motion for reconsideration, the sole issue before us is the propriety of that ruling. See 4th Cir. Local R. 34(b).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.