US v. Charles Izac

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:02-cr-00058-JPB-JSK-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999050147]. Mailed to: Charles Izac. [12-7741]

Appeal: 12-7741

Doc: 5

Filed: 02/25/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7741

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES D. IZAC,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:02-cr-00058-JPB-JSK-1)

Submitted:

February 21, 2013

Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.

DAVIS,

Circuit

Decided: February 25, 2013

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles D. Izac, Appellant Pro Se.
Paul Thomas Camilletti,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7741

Doc: 5

Filed: 02/25/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Charles

D.

Izac

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

denying relief on his motion for review of his sentence.
have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

We

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

United

States

v.

(N.D.W. Va. Sept. 5, 2012).

Izac,

No.

3:02-cr-00058-JPB-JSK-1

To the extent that Izac intends for

his motion for review of his sentence to be considered by this
court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(A), we deny the motion as
untimely. *
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

*

Although the appeal period in criminal cases is not
jurisdictional, but rather a claim-processing rule, Bowles v.
Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209–14 (2007); United States v. Urutyan,
564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009), where, as here, review is
sought more than five years after the entry of the judgment, we
may exercise our inherent power to dismiss it.
See United
States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744, 750 (10th Cir. 2008).

2