US v. Raymond Chestnut, No. 16-7578 (4th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7578 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1) Submitted: March 29, 2017 Decided: April 5, 2017 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Edward Chestnut, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raymond Edward Chestnut appeals the district court’s July 21, 2015 text order denying his motion seeking a reduced sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within 14 days after the entry of judgment. With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to 30 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). Chestnut filed his notice of appeal more than a year after entry of the order he seeks to challenge. * Because Chestnut’s appeal is inordinately late, we dismiss the appeal as untimely filed. Chestnut’s motion for release on bond is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED * Chestnut’s representations that he filed his notice of appeal on August 3, 2015, simply are not credible. 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.