US v. James Cole, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:07-cr-00316-JFA-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999383762].. [13-4750]

Appeal: 13-4750

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/26/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4750

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES ISSAC COLE, JR., a/k/a Brother Cole,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (0:07-cr-00316-JFA-1)

Submitted:

June 20, 2014

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

WYNN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

June 26, 2014

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Isaac Cole, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
John David Rowell,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4750

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/26/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James Isaac Cole, Jr., seeks to appeal his conviction
and sentence.

At the time Cole’s judgment of conviction was

entered on the docket, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
required a defendant in a criminal case to file his notice of
appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment.
P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i).

Fed. R. App.

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 February 11,
2008.

Cole filed his notice of appeal on October 3, 2013.

Because Cole failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain
an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal as
untimely. *
legal

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions

are

adequately

*

presented

in

the

materials

We note that the appeal period in a criminal case is not a
jurisdictional provision, but, rather, a claim-processing rule.
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209-14 (2007); Rice v. Rivera,
617 F.3d 802, 810 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Urutyan, 564
F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009).
Because Cole’s appeal is
inordinately late, and its consideration is not in the best
interest of judicial economy, we exercise our inherent power to
dismiss it.
United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744, 750
(10th Cir. 2008).

2

Appeal: 13-4750

before

Doc: 11

this

court

Filed: 06/26/2014

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3