US v. William Cross, No. 12-7097 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7097 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:03-cr-00010-RBS-1) Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 6, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Terrence Cross, Appellant Tayman, Assistant United States Virginia, for Appellee. Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Attorney, Newport News, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Terrence Cross seeks to appeal his conviction for tampering with a witness and retaliation against a witness. notice of In criminal appeal judgment. 1 Fed. cases, within R. the fourteen App. defendant days must file the the entry of without a after P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or 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 August 1, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on June 8, 2012. 2 Because failed to to extension file of the a timely appeal notice of appeal or period, we dismiss the Cross obtain appeal. an In addition, we dismiss the appeal as duplicative. DISMISSED 1 At the time judgment was entered, the appeal period was ten days. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i) (2008). On December 1, 2009, the period was extended to fourteen days. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i) (2009). Cross s notice of appeal was untimely under either period. 2 For the purpose of this appeal, the date appearing on Cross s notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. See 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.
