Opinion
16-cr-0297 (AMD)
11-17-2017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ANTHONY BROWN, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ANN M. DONNELLY, District Judge:
The defendant, Anthony Brown, proceeding pro se, filed a motion on October 30, 2017, requesting, among other things, to modify and/or vacate the sentence imposed by this Court on October 11, 2017. (ECF No. 240.) The defendant also filed a notice of appeal on October 20, 2017. (ECF No. 231.) No matter whether the Court construes Mr. Brown's submission as a motion to correct his sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a), or as a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the defendant's notice of appeal strips this Court of jurisdiction over any substantive matters related to this case, and therefore precludes me from ruling on the defendant's motion. See U.S. v. Ramjohn, No. 96-cr-767-SJ, 2008 WL 974580, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2008) (finding that a notice of appeal precluded the court from adjudicating the defendant's Rule 35(a) motion, and citing U.S. v. Ransom, 866 F.2d. 574, 575 (2d Cir. 1989)); U.S. v. Nichols, 56 F.3d 403, 411 (2d Cir. 1995) ("an effective notice of appeal . . . divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal . . . a district court does not have the power to change a sentence . . . while an appeal [is] pending"); U.S. v. Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247, 251 (2d Cir. 1996) ("As a general matter, the filing of a notice of appeal . . . confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.").
Although the defendant was represented by counsel up to and during his sentencing, he is proceeding pro se for purposes of this motion. --------
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, because the defendant has filed a notice of appeal, I do not have jurisdiction to make a determination on the defendant's motion. SO ORDERED.
s/Ann M. Donnelly
ANN M. DONNELLY
United States District Judge Dated:Brooklyn, New York
November 17, 2017