UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-8049
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN JOSE BALTAZAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:06-cr-00998-HMH-4)
Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 22, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Juan Jose Baltazar, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Leesa
Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Jose Baltazar seeks to appeal from his 2007
convictions for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)
(2006), and possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841 (2006). The Government has moved to dismiss the
appeal as untimely. We grant the Government’s motion and
dismiss Baltazar’s 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). “When the government properly objects to the
untimeliness of a defendant’s criminal appeal, Rule 4(b) is
mandatory and inflexible.” See United States v. Frias, 521 F.3d
229, 234 (2d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).
*
In 2009, Rule 4(b) was amended and the time for filing a
notice of appeal was extended from ten to fourteen days.
Because Baltazar was sentenced in 2007, the prior version of the
Rule applies.
2
The district court entered the criminal judgment
against Baltazar on May 14, 2007. The notice of appeal was
deemed filed on December 18, 2013. See Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Because Baltazar failed to file a timely
notice of appeal, we grant the Government’s motion and dismiss
the appeal. We dispense 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