United States v. Gonzalez-Rodriguez, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1052

Gonzalez-Rodriguez pled guilty in 2002 in NH to aggravated felonious sexual assault and therefore was required to register under SORNA; he later moved to Puerto Rico and failed to register and was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).
He pled guilty in federal court to failure to register on August 1, 2011; sentencing occurred February 24, 2012, and the district court orally imposed 36 months imprisonment plus 15 years supervised release with special conditions (e.g., no contact with minors).
The district court entered judgment on February 28, 2012 and advised defense counsel that any notice of appeal had to be filed within 14 days of entry of judgment; no timely notice of appeal was filed.
On March 9, 2012 (10 days after judgment), defense counsel filed a "Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence;" the district court did not rule within 14 days and ultimately denied the motion on January 31, 2013.
The defendant filed a notice of appeal on February 4, 2013 attempting to appeal both the original judgment and the denial of the reconsideration motion; the government raised lack of appellate jurisdiction and the First Circuit ordered briefing on jurisdiction.
The First Circuit held the appeal untimely because self-styled motions to reconsider do not toll the 14-day criminal appeal period and Rule 35(a) relief must be adjudicated within 14 days (or the court loses authority to modify the sentence).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal from the February 28, 2012 judgment was timely	N/A (government argues untimely)	Gonzalez-Rodriguez argued his March 9, 2012 "motion for reconsideration" made the later notice of appeal timely	Appeal from the original judgment was untimely because Fed. R. App. P. 4(b) requires notice within 14 days and the motion filed is not one of the motions that toll that period
Whether a self-styled "motion for reconsideration" tolls the Rule 4(b) appeal period	N/A	The motion tolled or otherwise made the appeal timely	Rejected: Rule 4(b)(3)(A) lists the only motions that suspend the 14-day period and a motion to reconsider is not one of them; 2002 amendments reject prior Morillo approach
Whether a district court may entertain a common-law motion to reconsider a sentence after judgment	N/A	Motion was a valid post-judgment vehicle to alter sentence	Rejected: Congress removed common-law authority by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); post-judgment sentencing relief must be sought under Rule 35 or a statutory source
Whether a Rule 35(a) motion filed and decided after 14 days preserves appellate timeliness	N/A	Motion within 14 days (filed) sufficed even if court ruled later	Rejected: Rule 35(a) relief is narrow and the court must rule within 14 days; if not ruled on within 14 days the court loses jurisdiction and the motion is deemed denied; appellant should have filed timely notice of appeal from the original judgment

United States v. Rapoport, 159 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998) (Fed. R. App. P. 4(b) time limits are mandatory)
United States v. Morillo, 8 F.3d 864 (1st Cir. 1993) (earlier First Circuit view that was later rejected by Rule 4(b) amendments)
United States v. Griffin, 524 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2008) (once imposed, sentence may be modified only as authorized by § 3582(c) or Rule 35)
United States v. Fahm, 13 F.3d 447 (1st Cir. 1994) (if Rule 35(a) period expires without a ruling, court loses jurisdiction and motion is deemed denied)
United States v. Ortiz, 741 F.3d 288 (1st Cir. 2014) ("no such thing as a ‘motion to reconsider’ an otherwise final sentence")
United States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1 (1991) (common-law reconsideration by government can delay finality when no sentencing-specific bar applies)