US v. Amado Cartagena
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. AMADO ANTONIO CARTAGENA, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:06-cr-00153-FDW-DCK-1)
June 18, 2009
June 23, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished by per curiam opinion.
Amado Antonio Cartagena, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Amado Antonio Cartagena seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for reduction of sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006).
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 September 14, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on January 4, 2009. *
Because Cartagena 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.
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, 276 (1988).
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?