United States v. Brandon Mungo , 576 F. App'x 205 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4177
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON QUENDELL MUNGO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:10-cr-01042-RBH-2)
Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brandon Quendell Mungo, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley
Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brandon Quendell Mungo seeks to appeal the criminal
judgment entered on June 20, 2011, following his guilty plea to
robbery affecting interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951(a) (2012), and brandishing a firearm during a crime of
violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2012). The Government
has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. We grant the
Government’s motion and dismiss the appeal.
In criminal cases, a defendant must file his notice of
appeal within fourteen days after the entry of judgment. Fed.
R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). 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). Appeal periods are not
jurisdictional in criminal cases, but are court-prescribed
“claims-processing rules” that do not affect this court’s
subject matter jurisdiction. See Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802,
810 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating that non-statutory claim-processing
rules are not jurisdictional); United States v. Urutyan, 564
F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he non-statutory time limits
in Appellate Rule 4(b) do not affect subject matter
jurisdiction.”). However, we may still enforce the appeal
period when the Rule 4(b) time bar is invoked by the Government
2
or sua sponte when judicial resources or administration are
implicated or the delay in noting the appeal has been
inordinate. United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744, 750
(10th Cir. 2008).
The district court entered the criminal judgment on
June 20, 2011. Mungo filed his notice of appeal, at the
earliest, on February 20, 2014, well beyond the appeal period,
and he failed to obtain an extension of the appeal period.
Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss and
dismiss the appeal. 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
3