United States v. Hickman

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6844
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STANLEY HICKMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:93-cr-00144-BO-3)
Submitted: March 10, 2010 Decided: April 8, 2010
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley Hickman, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes,
Assistant United States Attorney, Robert Jack Higdon, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stanley Hickman appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion to correct the presentence report. ∗ We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United
States v. Hickman, No. 5:93-cr-00144-BO-3 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 25,
2009). 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.
AFFIRMED
∗
We previously remanded this case for the district court to
determine whether Hickman demonstrated excusable neglect or good
cause warranting an extension of the appeal period. Without
giving Hickman an opportunity to respond, the district court
found no excusable neglect. Because the time limits of Fed. R.
App. P. 4(b) are not jurisdictional, United States v. Urutyan,
564 F.3d 679, 683-86 (4th Cir. 2009), and the government has not
moved to dismiss the appeal, we decline to dismiss the appeal as
untimely and instead address the merits of the appeal.
2