US v. Hutchinson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LINDELL ROY Starsky, HUTCHINSON, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00015-HCM)
September 7, 2007
September 19, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jennifer T. Stanton, J.T. STANTON, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Richard Cooke, Howard J. Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorneys, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Lindell Roy Hutchinson seeks to appeal his 168-month sentence following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute. has moved to dismiss the appeal. The government
In criminal cases, the defendant
must file the notice of appeal within ten 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); United States v. Reyes, 759
F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered judgment on June 21, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on December 21, 2005.* Because
Hutchinson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we grant the government's motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal. United States v. Robinson, 361
U.S. 220, 224 (1960) (holding that timely filing of notice of appeal is "mandatory and jurisdictional"). argument because the facts We dispense with oral
and legal contentions are adequately
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 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?