United States v. Russell Landers

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7502
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RUSSELL D. LANDERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:96-cr-00034-BR-4)
Submitted: March 3, 2015 Decided: March 24, 2015
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Russell D. Landers, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Aubrey West,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Russell D. Landers seeks to appeal his conviction and
sentence entered in 1997. When Landers’ 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). 1 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 3, 1997.
Landers filed his notice of appeal, titled “notice of appeal by
and through 18 U.S.C. § 3742,” at the earliest, October 5, 2014. 2
Because Landers failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal
1
On December 1, 2009, the period was extended to fourteen
days. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i) (2009). Landers’ notice of
appeal is untimely under either period.
2
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 district court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
2
as untimely. 3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court.
DISMISSED
3
Even if Landers intended to appeal the district court’s
denial of his motion to reverse the conviction, his notice of
appeal would still be untimely.
3