United States v. Rowland Phillip Robinson ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4579
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROWLAND PHILLIP ROBINSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:09-cr-00160-H-1)
Submitted: October 22, 2013 Decided: October 24, 2013
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rowland Phillip Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. William Miller
Gilmore, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rowland Phillip Robinson seeks to appeal his 264-month
sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2006). 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).
The district court’s judgment was entered on the
docket on June 18, 2010. Robinson’s notice of appeal was filed
on July 7, 2013. 1 Because Robinson failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period,
we dismiss the appeal as untimely. 2
1
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,
276 (1988).
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); Rice v. Rivera,
617 F.3d 802, 810 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Urutyan,
564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009). Because Robinson’s appeal is
inordinately late, and its consideration is not in the best
interest of judicial economy, we exercise our inherent power to
(Continued)
2
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
dismiss it. United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744, 750
(10th Cir. 2008).
3