US v. Moore, No. 06-5184 (4th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-5184 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY EUGENE MOORE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00220-3) Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 26, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. E. Fitzgerald Parnell, III, POYNER & SPRUILL, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Thomas Tullidge Cullen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Timothy Eugene Moore seeks to appeal his 165-month sentence following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess crack, cocaine, and marijuana with the intent to distribute. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). 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 May 4, 2006. notice of appeal was filed on October 13, 2006.* The Because Moore failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED * 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. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). - 2 -

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.