United States v. Manuel Vargas ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MANUEL MEICHOR VARGAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:07-cr-01504-RBH-2)
Submitted: August 7, 2014 Decided: August 13, 2014
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Manuel Meichor Vargas, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Manuel Meichor Vargas seeks to appeal his convictions
and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
500 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (2012), and using and carrying a firearm during and in
relation to, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of, a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012).
At the time Vargas’ judgment of conviction was entered on the
docket, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure required a
defendant in a criminal case to file his notice of appeal within
ten days of 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).
The district court entered judgment on September 24,
2008. Vargas filed his notice of appeal, at the earliest, on
December 30, 2013. 1 Because Vargas failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period,
1
Vargas stated in his notice of appeal that he submitted it
on December 30, 2013. We presume that this date is the earliest
date it could have been delivered to prison officials for
mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
2
we dismiss the appeal as untimely. 2 We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court.
DISMISSED
2
We note that the appeal period in a criminal case is not a
jurisdictional provision, but, rather, a claim-processing rule.
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209-14 (2007); United States v.
Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009). Because Vargas’
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).
3