US v. Andrew Privott, No. 08-7171 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7171 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ANDREW LEWIS PRIVOTT, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:02-cr-00090-JBF-FBS-1) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 20, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew Lewis Privott, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andrew Privott seeks to appeal the district court s order denying 18 U.S.C. dismiss his motion § 3582(c)(2) the appeal for reduction (2006). as The untimely. of sentence Government We grant has the under moved to Government s motion and dismiss Privott s appeal. 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); see United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th criminal Cir. in 2000) nature (holding and that that a ten-day § 3582 appeal proceeding period is applies). 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). When untimeliness of the a government defendant s mandatory and inflexible. properly criminal objects appeal, to Rule 4(b) the is See United States v. Frias, 521 F.3d 229, 234 (2d Cir.) (citations omitted), cert denied, -- S. Ct. -, 2008 WL 2958966 (Oct. 6, 2008) (No. 08-5572). The district court entered its order motion for reduction of sentence on March 28, 2008. of appeal was deemed filed on May 23, 2008. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). denying the The notice See Houston v. Because Privott failed to file 2 a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we grant the Government s motion and dismiss the appeal. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
