United States v. McGlamry

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6334
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRYL JAMES MCGLAMRY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (2:88-cr-00136-JAB-1)
Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 27, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darryl James McGlamry, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darryl McGlamry seeks to appeal the district court’s
order granting the Government’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion, and
reducing McGlamry’s sentence. In criminal cases decided prior
to December 1, 2009, the defendant must file the notice of
appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R.
App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United States v. Little, 392 F.3d 671,
680-81 (4th Cir. 2004) (applying Rule 4(b)(1)(A) appeal period
to appeal from Rule 35 ruling). 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 its order on September 14,
2009. The notice of appeal was filed on March 1, 2010. * Because
McGlamry failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain
an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We
grant McGlamry’s motion to place the informal brief under seal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
*
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(1988).
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3