United States v. McKinnon ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-4-2008 USA v. McKinnon Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-2290 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "USA v. McKinnon" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 161. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/161 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ Nos. 07-2290 and 07-2523 ___________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MICHAEL MCKINNON Appellant ___________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal No. 03-cr-00251) District Judge: The Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo ___________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) OCTOBER 31, 2008 BEFORE: McKEE, NYGAARD, and SILER,* Circuit Judges. *Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. (Filed: December 4, 2008) ___________ OPINION OF THE COURT ___________ NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. This consolidated appeal arises from the dismissal of three pro se motions filed by McKinnon. The first two motions are the subject of the appeal at case number 07-2290, and the third is the subject of the appeal at case number 07-2523. McKinnon filed these pro se motions in the District Court while his direct appeal at case number 05-5314 was pending before us. The District Court dismissed the three motions in these two cases because it lacked jurisdiction. The filing of a notice of appeal removes a case from the District Court and places it under our jurisdiction. The District Court was correct. Because the District Court lacked jurisdiction, the dismissal was correct and typically would be affirmed. Because, however, the matter is before us in McKinnon’s other appeal, we will simply dismiss these two.