US v. Cedric Locklear, No. 14-4811 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4811 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CEDRIC LEE LOCKLEAR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:13-cr-00032-FL-3) Submitted: February 1, 2017 Decided: February 6, 2017 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David L. Neal, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cedric sentence. Lee Locklear seeks to appeal his conviction and The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appellate waiver in Locklear’s plea agreement. In a criminal case, a defendant must file his notice of appeal within 14 days after 4(b)(1)(A). the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. With or without a motion, the district court may extend the time in which to file a notice of appeal for an additional 30 days from the expiration of this time period upon a finding 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). The district court entered judgment on December 19, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on October 24, 2014. * failed to extension file or a timely reopening of notice the of appeal appeal court, we dismiss the appeal. period or in As Locklear to obtain the district We thus grant the Government’s motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of the appeal. dispense with oral argument an because * the facts and We legal See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (prisoner’s notice of appeal filed at the time it is delivered to prison officials for mailing). 2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
