US v. Andrew Privott

Filing 920081120

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7171 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ANDREW LEWIS PRIVOTT, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:02-cr-00090-JBF-FBS-1) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 20, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew Lewis Privott, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andrew Privott seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for reduction The We of sentence has under to 18 U.S.C. dismiss 3582(c)(2) appeal as (2006). untimely. Government grant the moved the Government's motion and dismiss Privott's appeal. 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); see United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. in 2000) and (holding that that a 3582 proceeding is criminal nature ten-day appeal period applies). 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). "When of a the government properly objects Rule to 4(b) the is untimeliness defendant's criminal appeal, mandatory and inflexible." See United States v. Frias, 521 F.3d 229, 234 (2d Cir.) (citations omitted), cert denied, -- S. Ct. -, 2008 WL 2958966 (Oct. 6, 2008) (No. 08-5572). The district court entered its order denying the motion for reduction of sentence on March 28, 2008. of appeal was deemed filed on May 23, 2008. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 2 The notice See Houston v. Because Privott failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we grant the Government's motion and dismiss the appeal. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional contentions the court would 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?