US v. Jasmine Robeson, No. 09-6722 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6722 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JASMINE ROCHELLS ROBESON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00140-GCM-2) Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 25, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jasmine Rochells Robeson, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jasmine Rochells Robeson seeks to appeal the district court s order granting her motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). for reduction of sentence In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United States v. of judgment. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding applies). is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal period 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 its order denying motion for reduction of sentence on September 8, 2008. the The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on April 2, 2009. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). failed to file a timely notice of appeal Because Robeson or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we grant the Government s motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely filed and 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 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.