United States v. Moore , 231 F. App'x 235 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-5184
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TIMOTHY EUGENE MOORE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
    District Judge. (3:03-cr-00220-3)
    Submitted:   June 21, 2007                 Decided:   June 26, 2007
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    E. Fitzgerald Parnell, III, POYNER & SPRUILL, LLP, Charlotte, North
    Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States
    Attorney, Thomas Tullidge Cullen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Timothy   Eugene   Moore   seeks   to   appeal   his   165-month
    sentence following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess crack,
    cocaine, and marijuana with the intent to distribute.        In criminal
    cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten 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 May 4, 2006.          The
    notice of appeal was filed on October 13, 2006.*           Because Moore
    failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension
    of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.      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 the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    *
    For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
    appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
    have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
    court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 
    487 U.S. 266
     (1988).
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-5184

Citation Numbers: 231 F. App'x 235

Judges: Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Shedd, Williams

Filed Date: 6/26/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023