UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4501
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL CHARLES JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, Chief District
Judge. (2:07-cr-01120-DCN-1)
Submitted: September 24, 2009 Decided: October 15, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dorwin J. Wolfe, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellant. W.
Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Matthew J. Modica,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Charles Jones seeks to appeal the amended
judgment of conviction. 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 April 2, 2009,
and a timely notice of appeal should have been filed by April
16, 2009. Assuming the date the notice was signed is the filing
date, Jones’ notice of appeal was filed on April 20, 2009. See
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). The district court
denied Jones’ motion to file a notice of appeal out of time,
finding no good cause or excusable neglect.
On appeal, the United States notes the appeal is
untimely and should be dismissed. Because Jones failed to file
a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the
appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. * We dispense with oral
*
Jones did not file a notice of appeal from the district
court order denying his motion to file a late notice of appeal
from the amended criminal judgment. Thus, this court will not
review whether the district court abused its discretion in
denying the motion.
2
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