US v. Rayford Knight

Filing 920100126

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6372 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAYFORD KNIGHT, a/k/a Cherokee, a/k/a Chief, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:93-cr-00022-BEL-1) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rayford Knight, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rayford Knight seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his "Motion to Enforce Judgment of Termination of Charges Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1361." We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. The district court entered its judgment on April 14, 2008. Knight's notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on Thus, Knight's notice of appeal was filed period established by Rule 4 of the January 27, 2009. well beyond the appeal Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because appeal, we Knight the failed appeal. to file a timely motion notice for of dismiss Knight's default judgment is denied. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the contentions the court materials would 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 2

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?