US v. Damian Bey, No. 08-8359 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8359 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAMIAN G. BEY, a/k/a Damien Giovanni Bey, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:03-cr-00252-BR-l) Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 23, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Damian G. Bey, Appellant Pro Se. North Carolina, for Appellee. Mary Jude Darrow, Raleigh, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Damian G. Bey seeks to appeal the denial of his motions to compel the Government to file a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion and to withdraw his guilty plea. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). 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 judgment on March 24, 2008 and reaffirmed its previous denial on July 14, 2008. of appeal was filed on October 22, 2008. * The notice Because Bey failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, 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 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 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.
