United States v. William Walden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4080
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM WALDEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00135-BR-1)
Submitted: July 16, 2013 Decided: July 25, 2013
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Burell Shella, SHELLA HARRIS & AUS P.C., Durham, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Walden seeks to appeal the criminal judgment
entered on January 16, 2013, following his guilty plea to
possession with intent to distribute twenty-eight grams or more
of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a) (West 1999
& Supp. 2013), and possession of a sawed off shotgun in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2006). The Government has moved to dismiss
the appeal as untimely. We grant the Government’s motion and
dismiss the appeal.
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). Appeal periods are not
jurisdictional in criminal cases, but are court-prescribed
“claims-processing rules” that do not affect this court’s
subject matter jurisdiction. See Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802,
810 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating that non-statutory claim-processing
rules are not jurisdictional); United States v. Urutyan, 564
F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he non-statutory time limits
in Appellate Rule 4(b) do not affect subject matter
2
jurisdiction.”). However, we may still enforce the appeal
period when the Rule 4(b) time bar is invoked by the Government
or sua sponte when judicial resources or administration are
implicated or the delay in noting the appeal has been
inordinate. United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744, 750
(10th Cir. 2008).
The district court entered the criminal judgment on
January 16, 2013. Walden filed his notice of appeal on February
3, 2013, four days beyond the appeal period, and he failed to
obtain an extension of the appeal period. Accordingly, we grant
the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal. We
deny as moot the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal based
on the appeal waiver in Walden’s plea agreement. 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
3