United States v. Theresa Mubang ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6129
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THERESA MUBANG,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:01-cr-00252-LMB-1)
Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: April 24, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theresa Mubang, Appellant Pro Se. Leonard Oliver Evans, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Theresa Mubang seeks to appeal her judgment of conviction. In criminal cases, the
defendant must file the notice of appeal within 14 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 30 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 October 5, 2001. Mubang filed the notice of
appeal on January 29, 2018, nearly 17 years after entry of judgment. In the notice, Mubang
sought an order vacating that portion of the criminal judgment ordering restitution.
Because Mubang has previously sought an order vacating the restitution order, we conclude
that this is one of those circumstances when this court may invoke its sua sponte authority
to dismiss the appeal as untimely. See United States v. Oliver, 878 F.3d 120, 128-30 (4th
Cir. 2017) (stating that court may invoke sua sponte authority to dismiss an untimely direct
criminal appeal after defendant has pursued collateral relief of the same judgment).
Because Mubang failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening 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 this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2