United States v. Charles Brown , 546 F. App'x 328 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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