US v. Charles Brown

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:99-cr-00154-GCM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999246508]. Mailed to: Charles Brown. [13-7110]

Appeal: 13-7110

Doc: 6

Filed: 11/25/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7110

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARLES EMMANUEL BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (3:99-cr-00154-GCM-1)

Submitted:

November 21, 2013

Decided:

November 25, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Emmanuel Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7110

Doc: 6

Filed: 11/25/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Charles Emmanuel Brown seeks to appeal his conviction
and sentence.
notice

of

In criminal cases, the defendant must file the

appeal

judgment.

Fed.

within
R.

App.

fourteen
P.

days

after

4(b)(1)(A).

the
or

With

entry

of

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
2001.

district

court

entered

judgment

on

January

The notice of appeal was filed on July 11, 2013.

20,

Because

Brown failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension

of

untimely. *
legal
before

the

period,

we

dismiss

the

appeal

as

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

appeal

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED
*

We note that the appeal period in a criminal case is not a
jurisdictional provision, but, rather, a claims-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 Brown’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