US v. William Flowers, No. 13-4847 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4847 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WILLIAM AUSTIN FLOWERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:06-cr-00222-CCB-1) Submitted: October 22, 2014 Decided: November 5, 2014 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Austin Flowers, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Austin Flowers seeks to appeal his conviction and 154-month sentence following his guilty plea to obstruction of commerce through robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2012), and use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012). In a criminal case, where judgment was entered before December 1, 2009, a defendant must file his notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. 1 Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). With or without a motion, the district court may extend the time in which to file a notice expiration of of appeal for this time neglect or good cause. an additional period upon a thirty days finding of from the excusable Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered the criminal judgment on April 12, 2007. 2013. 2 The notice of appeal was filed November 4, Because Flowers failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period, and because the 1 At the time the 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). Flowers’ notice of appeal was untimely under either period. 2 See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (prisoners entitled to filing as of date they tendered notice of appeal to prison authorities for mailing). 2 delay was Flowers’ inordinate, motion to we dismiss appoint the counsel. appeal. We We also deny dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in 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.
