Raymond Edward JAMES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6405.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
July 16, 2003
Submitted July 10, 2003. Raymond Edward James, Appellant Pro Se. Frank DeArmon Whitney, United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Raymond Edward James appeals the district court‘s order denying relief on his
In his Rule 35(a) motion, James asserted that the district court did not make specific findings as to the amount of restitution within ninety days and improperly delegated the timing and amount of restitution payments to the probation officer. James’ challenge to the restitution order is to a sentence imposed in an illegal manner—not to an illegal sentence. See, e.g., Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 430 & n. 9, 82 S.Ct. 468, 7 L.Ed.2d 417 (1962). Therefore, James had 120 days from the time the sentence was imposed to file his Rule 35 motion. See
James’ sentence was imposed in May 1985.1 Because James’ Rule 35(a) motion was not filed until November 21, 2002, well beyond the 120-day limit, the district court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the motion. Id. Even if the 120-day period was calculated from March 3, 1995 (the date on which this Court decided United States v. Johnson, 48 F.3d 806 (4th Cir. 1995), and on which the delegation claim became available to James), his November 2002 motion still was untimely. See Pavlico, 961 F.2d at 443. We therefore affirm the district court‘s denial of relief on the ground that the Rule 35 motion was untimely filed and the district court therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain it.2 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.