US v. Clifton Perry, No. 14-4467 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4467 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CLIFTON FARRELL PERRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00005-TDS-1) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2014 Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martin J. Beres, Clinton Township, Michigan, for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Clifton Farrell Perry pleaded guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2012). The district court sentenced Perry to 151 months of imprisonment and Perry seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within fourteen days Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). after the entry of judgment. 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 court entered judgment on September 19, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on June 6, 2014. * Because Perry failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the * For filing as officials Houston v. the purpose of this appeal, we consider the date of the date that Perry delivered his notice to prison for mailing to this court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 2 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.
