UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HENRY EARL MILLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:04-cr-00022-HFF-3)
Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 10, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Earl Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Henry Earl Miller seeks to appeal the 2005 sentence
imposed after his guilty plea to bank robbery and firearms charges.
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’s judgment imposing Miller’s sentence
was entered on July 8, 2005. The notice of appeal was dated
December 10, 2007, and filed December 13, 2007.* Because Miller
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension
of the appeal period, any appeal from his sentence is untimely.
In a filing in this court, Miller asserts that he
intended the notice of appeal to apply to a district court order
entered on September 10, 2007, which denied Miller’s motion for
reconsideration and modification of his sentence. Although the
notice of appeal refers solely to Miller’s 2005 criminal sentence,
we observe that the notice, filed ninety-one days after the
*
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 delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
- 2 -
September 10, 2007, order, would be untimely from that order, as
well. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a).
We deny Miller’s motion for immediate release pending
appeal and his motion to expedite his appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -