Opinion

United States v. Charles Brown

  • 546 F. App'x 328
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Nov 25, 2013
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
King, Duncan, Diaz
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 47.8%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7110

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHARLES EMMANUEL BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen,

Senior District Judge. (3:99-cr-00154-GCM-1)

Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 25, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Emmanuel Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Emmanuel Brown seeks to appeal his conviction

and sentence. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the

notice of appeal within fourteen days after the entry of

judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a

motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the

district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to

file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United

States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985).

The district court entered judgment on January 20,

2001. The notice of appeal was filed on July 11, 2013. Because

Brown failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an

extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal as

untimely. * 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.

DISMISSED

*

We note that the appeal period in a criminal case is not a

jurisdictional provision, but, rather, a claims-processing rule.

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209-14 (2007); Rice v. Rivera,

617 F.3d 802, 810 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Urutyan,

564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009). Because Brown’s appeal is

inordinately late, and its consideration is not in the best

interest of judicial economy, we exercise our inherent power to

dismiss it. United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744, 750

(10th Cir. 2008).

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.