UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4036
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LINDELL ROY HUTCHINSON, a/k/a Star, a/k/a
Starsky,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00015-HCM)
Submitted: September 7, 2007 Decided: September 19, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jennifer T. Stanton, J.T. STANTON, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Richard Cooke,
Howard J. Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorneys, Newport
News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lindell Roy Hutchinson seeks to appeal his 168-month
sentence following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and
to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute. The government
has moved to dismiss the appeal. In criminal cases, the defendant
must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of
judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). 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 June 21, 2005.
The notice of appeal was filed on December 21, 2005.* Because
Hutchinson 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 and dismiss the appeal. United States v. Robinson, 361
U.S. 220, 224 (1960) (holding that timely filing of notice of
appeal is “mandatory and jurisdictional”). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -