United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. David Robert Brown, Defendant-appellant, 807 F.2d 175 (4th Cir. 1986)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 807 F.2d 175 (4th Cir. 1986) Submitted Sept. 19, 1986
Decided Dec. 10, 1986

Before WIDENER, PHILLIPS and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

David Robert Brown, appellant pro se.

Charles Robinson Brewer, Office of the U.S. Attorney, for appellee.

PER CURIAM:


David Robert Brown appeals the district court's imposition of sentence on his 18 U.S.C. § 1343 conviction pursuant to his guilty plea. Brown was sentenced on June 2, 1986; however, he did not file his notice of appeal until June 19, 1986.

Under Fed. R. App. P. (4) (b), notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed in the district court within ten days from the entry of judgment. Upon a showing of excusable neglect, the district court may extend the time of filing by an additional thirty days. On July 1, 1986 Brown filed, in the district court, a request for an extension of time for filing his notice of appeal. The court subsequently denied the request, finding no excusable neglect for Brown's delay.

The question before this Court is whether the trial judge abused his discretion in denying Brown's request for an extension of time within which to note his appeal. Buckley v. United States, 382 F.2d 611 (10th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 997 (1968); Lowry v. Long Island R.R., 370 F.2d 911 (2d Cir. 1966); Nichols-Morris Corp. v. Morris, 279 F.2d 81 (2d Cir. 1960). Brown's request for an extension gives no reasons for his delay in noting a timely appeal. The district court did not, therefore, abuse its discretion in refusing to find excusable neglect for the delay which would warrant granting an extension of time. Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Brown's appeal.

Because the dispositive issues have recently been decided authoritatively we dispense with oral argument, grant the government's motion to dismiss, and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.