United States v. Calvin Iberson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4693
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CALVIN IBERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00024-JPJ-1)
Submitted: June 15, 2017 Decided: June 27, 2017
Before TRAXLER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles M. Henter, HENTERLAW, PLC, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant.
Zachery T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Iberson seeks to appeal from his conviction and 48-month sentence for
cocaine base trafficking. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely
and barred by Iberson’s appellate waiver. We grant the Government’s motion and
dismiss Iberson’s appeal.
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). “When the government properly objects to the
untimeliness of a defendant's criminal appeal, Rule 4(b) is mandatory and inflexible.”
See United States v. Frias, 521 F.3d 229, 234 (2d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).
The district court entered the criminal judgment against Iberson on January 6,
2015. The notice of appeal was deemed filed on November 19, 2016. See Houston v.
Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Because Iberson failed to file a timely notice of appeal,
we grant the Government's motion 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
2