US v. Juan Baltazar, No. 13-8049 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-8049 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUAN JOSE BALTAZAR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:06-cr-00998-HMH-4) Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 22, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juan Jose Baltazar, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Juan Jose Baltazar seeks to appeal from his 2007 convictions for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking (2006), crime, and methamphetamine, in as of 18 possession with cocaine U.S.C. marijuana, U.S.C. § 841 (2006). appeal violation untimely. and intent in § 924(c)(1)(A) to distribute violation of 21 The Government has moved to dismiss the We grant the Government s motion and dismiss Baltazar s appeal. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. * App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). Fed. R. 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). untimeliness of When the government properly objects to the a defendant s mandatory and inflexible. criminal appeal, Rule 4(b) is See United States v. Frias, 521 F.3d 229, 234 (2d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). * In 2009, Rule 4(b) was amended and the time for filing a notice of appeal was extended from ten to fourteen days. Because Baltazar was sentenced in 2007, the prior version of the Rule applies. 2 The district court entered the criminal judgment against Baltazar on May 14, 2007. The notice of appeal was deemed filed on December 18, 2013. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Because Baltazar failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we grant the Government s motion and dismiss the appeal. 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.
