US v. Laron McIntyre, No. 09-6448 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6448 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LARON MARCELL MCINTYRE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00213-D-1) Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 29, 2009 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Laron Marcell McIntyre, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Laron Marcell McIntyre seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). appeal period is mandatory and jurisdictional. This Browder v. Dir., Dep t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)); see Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, , 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2366 (2007).. The district court s order was entered on the docket on November 3, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on, at the earliest, February 24, 2009, one hundred thirteen days after entry of judgment. * Though McIntyre moved for, and received, leave from the district court to file an appeal out of time, the * For purposes of this appeal, we assume that the date McIntyre wrote on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 2 district court was without authority to grant such an order, as McIntyre s motion expiration of was the filed appeal more period. than thirty Fed. R. days App. P. after the 4(a)(5). Accordingly, because McIntyre s notice of appeal was untimely, 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 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.
