US v. Christopher Brockman, No. 14-6055 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6055 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER BROCKMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (6:08-cr-00467-JMC-5) Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Brockman, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher Brockman appeals the district court s order denying his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. ยง 3582(c)(2) (2012). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1)(A), a defendant in a criminal case has fourteen days from the entry of the district appeal. court s judgment to timely file his notice of See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235 n.* (4th Cir. 2010) ( [Section] 3582 motions . . . are criminal in nature. ). Upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause, however, the district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal for up to thirty days. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). While Rule 4(b) s time limitations are not jurisdictional, we have consistently enforced . . . adhered when to the properly view invoked that by the they must be [G]overnment. United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 19 (2005) ( These claim-processing rules thus assure relief to a party properly raising them. )). Here, the Government has properly invoked Rule 4(b) by requesting that the court dismiss the appeal as untimely in its response to this court s order to respond to the jurisdiction question. The district court s order was entered on the docket 2 on April 10, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on January 9, 2014 nearly one year and eight months beyond both the appeal and excusable neglect periods. untimely and enforcement, the we Government dismiss the Because Brockman s appeal is has promptly appeal. We sought Rule dispense 4(b) s 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.
