US v. Rowland Phillip Robinson, No. 13-4579 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4579 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROWLAND PHILLIP ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:09-cr-00160-H-1) Submitted: October 22, 2013 Decided: October 24, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rowland Phillip Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Gilmore, Assistant United States Attorney, Carolina, for Appellee. William Miller Raleigh, North Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rowland Phillip Robinson seeks to appeal his 264-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 924(c) (2006). In criminal cases, a defendant must file his notice of appeal within fourteen days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). 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 docket on June 18, 2010. on July 7, 2013. 1 court s judgment was entered on the Robinson s notice of appeal was filed Because Robinson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal as untimely. 2 1 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 We note that the appeal period in a criminal case is not a jurisdictional provision, but, rather, a claim-processing rule. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209-14 (2007); Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 810 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009). Because Robinson s appeal is inordinately late, and its consideration is not in the best interest of judicial economy, we exercise our inherent power to (Continued) 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED dismiss it. United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744, 750 (10th Cir. 2008). 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.
