US v. Charles Brown, No. 13-7110 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7110 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES EMMANUEL BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:99-cr-00154-GCM-1) Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 25, 2013 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Emmanuel Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Emmanuel Brown seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. notice of In criminal cases, the defendant must file the appeal judgment. Fed. within R. App. fourteen P. days after 4(b)(1)(A). the of or With entry 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 2001. district court entered judgment on January The notice of appeal was filed on July 11, 2013. 20, Because Brown failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of untimely. * legal before the period, we dismiss the appeal as We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this appeal court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED * We note that the appeal period in a criminal case is not a jurisdictional provision, but, rather, a claims-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 Brown s appeal is inordinately late, and its consideration is not in the best interest of judicial economy, we exercise our inherent power to dismiss it. United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744, 750 (10th Cir. 2008). 2