US v. Willie Barrett

Filing 920100226

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8264

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIE BARRETT, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:04-cr-00087-H-3)

Submitted:

February 18, 2010

Decided:

February 26, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Barrett, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Willie Barrett seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motions for clarification of sentence, for transcripts, and to proceed in forma pauperis. 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). 1

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 August 4, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on November 4, 2009. 2 Because

Barrett failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension dispense of with the appeal period, we dismiss the the facts appeal. and We legal

oral

argument

because

Rule 4(b)(1)(A) was amended effective December 1, 2009, to provide a period of fourteen calendar days to file a notice of appeal. This amendment does not affect the timeliness of Barrett's notice of appeal. 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

1

2

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED

3