US v. Moses Reza, No. 10-4808 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on November 10, 2010.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4808 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MOSES REZA, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-4111 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MOSES REZA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00158-NCT-1) Submitted: June 9, 2014 Decided: Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. June 30, 2014 Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Anna Mills Wagoner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In appeal his these consolidated conviction and appeals, sentence Moses after Reza pleading seeks to guilty to conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. He also appeals the district court s order denying an extension of the time to Government appeal has under moved to Fed. R. dismiss conviction and sentence as untimely. App. P. Reza s 4(b)(4). appeal from The his Reza s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but asking us to review the record pursuant to Anders. Reza was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We grant the Government s motion to dismiss Reza s appeal from his conviction and sentence, and we affirm the district court s order denying an extension under Rule 4(b). In criminal cases, the defendant must file a notice of appeal within fourteen days after the entry of judgment. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). Fed. 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). are not jurisdictional, raises the issue. While time periods in criminal cases we enforce them when the Government See United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 683-686 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 3 740, 744 (10th Cir. 2008). We review a district court s denial of an extension under Rule 4(b) for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Breit, 754 F.2d 526, 528-29 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered the amended judgment on May 24, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on July 6, 2010. Fed. R. App. P. 4(d). See We previously remanded this case to the district court to determine whether Reza could show excusable neglect period. or good cause warranting an extension of the appeal On remand, the district court found that an extension of the appeal period was not warranted. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an extension under Rule 4(b). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant the Government s motion to dismiss Reza s appeal from his conviction and sentence, and we affirm the district court s order denying an extension under Rule 4(b). This Court requires that counsel inform his or her client, in writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. that a petition be filed, but counsel If the client requests believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this Court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 4 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the Court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 5
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.
