United States v. Linder

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6075
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JASON LANDIS LINDER, a/k/a Black, a/k/a Rodney Peterson,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:04-cr-00016-RAJ-JEB-5)
Submitted: March 25, 2010 Decided: April 2, 2010
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason Landis Linder, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jason Landis Linder seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion to compel specific performance
based on the Government’s decision not to file a Fed. R. Crim.
P. 35 motion. 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).
The district court entered its order on October 8,
2009. The notice of appeal was filed on January 4, 2010. *
Because Linder failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension 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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
*
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). We further note that even if we applied the sixty-day
civil appeal period as stated in the district court’s order,
Linder’s notice of appeal would still have been untimely.
2