US v. Stotts, No. 06-7216 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7216 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT ELTON STOTTS, a/k/a Sugarbear, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:95-cr-00049-RBS-7) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 3, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Elton Stotts, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Philip Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Kevin Michael Comstock, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Elton Stotts appeals the district court s order denying his motion filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). In criminal cases, a defendant must file his notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal period applies and collecting cases adopting rule). With or without a motion, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). These time periods are mandatory and jurisdictional. The district court entered § 3582(c)(2) motion on May 8, 2006. expired on May 22, 2006. filed his notice of its order denying The ten-day appeal period See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(2). appeal, at the the earliest, on Stotts June 23, 2006 outside both the ten-day appeal period and the thirty-day excusable neglect period, which expired on June 21, 2006. Therefore, Stotts notice of appeal was not timely filed. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and - 2 - legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 3 -
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.
