United States v. Kevin Gedeon , 514 F. App'x 341 ( 2013 )

CORRECTED OPINION
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7688
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KEVIN GEDEON, a/k/a Cash,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:09-cr-00030-JPB-JES-2; 3:11-cv-00069-
JPB)
Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 15, 2013
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Gedeon, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant
United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In United States v. Gedeon, 487 F. App’x 822 (4th Cir.
2012) (No. 12-6959), we denied a certificate of appealability
and dismissed Kevin Gedeon’s appeal from the district court’s
order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying Gedeon’s 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion.
During the pendency of that appeal, Gedeon filed in the district
court a motion to file objections to the report and
recommendation. The district court denied that motion on the
merits. Gedeon now appeals. We affirm for the reason set forth
within.
“[A] federal district court and a federal court of
appeals should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a case
simultaneously.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459
U.S. 56, 58 (1982). Therefore, a timely-filed “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.’” Dixon v. Edwards, 290 F.3d 699, 709
n.14 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Griggs, 459 U.S. at 58).
Though not based on statutory provisions or rules of
procedure, this rule was devised by courts “in the context of
civil appeals to avoid confusion or waste of time resulting from
having the same issues before two courts at the same time.”
United States v. Montgomery, 262 F.3d 233, 239-40 (4th Cir.
2
2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Consequently,
jurisdiction over a particular subject or issue is exercised by
only one court at a time, and “a district court may not
interfere with [an appellate court’s] jurisdiction by amending a
decision that is under appellate review.” United States v.
McHugh, 528 F.3d 538, 540 (7th Cir. 2008).
Although there are exceptions to this doctrine, such
exceptions generally pertain to issues either wholly collateral
to those raised in the appeal or in aid of the appeal. See
Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n Local 19 v. Herre Bros., Inc.,
198 F.3d 391, 394 (3d Cir. 1999); Montgomery, 262 F.3d at 239-
40. No exception applies in this case.
Here, the filing of the notice of appeal in No.
12-6959 deprived the district court of jurisdiction over
Gedeon’s motion for leave to file objections to the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. Accordingly, we grant a
certificate of appealability for the purpose of modifying the
district court’s order to reflect that the motion was denied for
want of jurisdiction and affirm the order as modified. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
3