US v. William Walden, No. 13-4080 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4080 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM WALDEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:12-cr-00135-BR-1) Submitted: July 16, 2013 Decided: July 25, 2013 Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. C. Burell Shella, SHELLA HARRIS & AUS P.C., Durham, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: William Walden seeks to appeal the criminal judgment entered on January 16, 2013, following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute twenty-eight grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a) (West 1999 & Supp. 2013), furtherance of and a possession drug of trafficking U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2006). the appeal as untimely. a sawed crime, in off shotgun violation in of 18 The Government has moved to dismiss We grant the Government s motion and dismiss the appeal. In criminal cases, a defendant must file his notice of appeal within fourteen days after the entry of judgment. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). 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. F.2d Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 351, 353 jurisdictional (4th in claims-processing Cir. 1985). criminal rules cases, that subject matter jurisdiction. do Appeal periods but are not affect are not court-prescribed this court s See Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 810 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating that non-statutory claim-processing rules are not jurisdictional); United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009) ( [T]he non-statutory time limits in Appellate Rule 4(b) do not 2 affect subject matter jurisdiction. ). However, we may still enforce the appeal period when the Rule 4(b) time bar is invoked by the Government or sua sponte implicated or inordinate. when judicial the delay resources or noting the in administration appeal has are been United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744, 750 (10th Cir. 2008). The district court entered the criminal judgment on January 16, 2013. Walden filed his notice of appeal on February 3, 2013, four days beyond the appeal period, and he failed to obtain an extension of the appeal period. Accordingly, we grant the Government s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal. We deny as moot the Government s motion to dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver in Walden s plea agreement. 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 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.
