US v. Albert Burge
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00017-GCM-DLH-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency . Mailed to: Albert Charles Burgess, Jr. [16-7376]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00017-GCM-DLH-1)
December 20, 2016
December 22, 2016
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert Charles Burgess, Appellant Pro Se.
Kimlani M. Ford,
Cortney Randall, Edward R. Ryan, Assistant United States
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., seeks to appeal his 292-month
commerce via computer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B)
minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, which were shipped
in interstate commerce via computer, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
notice of appeal within 14 days after the entry of judgment.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i).
With or without a motion, upon a
showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court
may grant an extension of up to 30 days to file a notice of
759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985).
The district court entered the criminal judgment imposing
the 292-month sentence on August 27, 2010.
notice of appeal on September 30, 2016. 1
Burgess filed his
Because Burgess failed
to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension of the
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. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266, 276 (1988).
Pg: 3 of 3
appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 2
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.
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); United States v.
Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009).
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).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?