US v. Anthony Moore

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:02-cr-00225-AWA-9 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999767998]. Mailed to: Anthony Moore. [15-7470]

Appeal: 15-7470

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/04/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7470

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY MOORE, a/k/a Ant,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:02-cr-00225-AWA-9)

Submitted:

February 29, 2016

Decided:

March 4, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Moore, Appellant Pro Se.
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Appellee.

Darryl James Mitchell,
Norfolk,
Virginia,
for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7470

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/04/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Anthony Moore appeals the district court’s order denying
his post-judgment motions to suspend and disbar and to dismiss
his

indictment.

reversible error.

We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.

United States v. Moore, No. 2:02-cr-

00225-AWA-9 (E.D. Va. Jan. 29, 2015).
Moore also appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion
motions.

to

reconsider

its

order

denying

his

post-judgment

In criminal cases, the defendant must file his notice

of appeal within 14 days after the entry of judgment.
App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i).

Fed. R.

The district court entered its order

denying Moore’s post-judgment motions on January 29, 2015.
14-day appeal period expired on February 12, 2015.
App. P. 26(a).

The

See Fed. R.

Moore did not file his motion to reconsider

until, at the earliest, February 24, 2015. *
“[T]he
specifically

Federal

Rules

provide

for

of

Criminal

motions

for

Procedure

do

not

reconsideration

and

prescribe the time in which they must be filed.”
Storage

Co.

v.

Marsh,

755

F.2d

*

362,

364

(4th

Nilson Van &
Cir.

1985).

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the motion to reconsider is the earliest date it
could have been properly delivered to prison officials for
mailing to the court.
See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276
(1988).

2

Appeal: 15-7470

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/04/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

However, the Supreme Court has held that a motion for rehearing
or

reconsideration

extends

the

time

for

filing

a

notice

of

appeal in a criminal case if the motion is filed before the
order

sought

to

be

reconsidered

becomes

final.

See

United

States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1, 4 n.2 (1991) (per curiam) (holding
that

would-be

appellants

who

file

a

timely

motion

for

reconsideration from a criminal judgment are entitled to a full
time

period

for

reconsideration

noticing

has

been

the

appeal

decided);

after

United

the

States

motion
v.

for

Dieter,

429 U.S. 6, 7-8 (1976) (same); United States v. Christy, 3 F.3d
765, 767 n.1 (4th Cir. 1993) (same).

Because Moore did not

timely file the motion to reconsider, the district court should
have denied the motion as untimely.

We therefore affirm the

denial of the motion to reconsider on the ground that the motion
was untimely.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3