UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4750
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES ISSAC COLE, JR., a/k/a Brother Cole,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (0:07-cr-00316-JFA-1)
Submitted: June 20, 2014 Decided: June 26, 2014
Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Isaac Cole, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John David Rowell,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Isaac Cole, Jr., seeks to appeal his conviction
and sentence. At the time Cole’s judgment of conviction was
entered on the docket, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
required a defendant in a criminal case to file his notice of
appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App.
P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). 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 February 11,
2008. Cole filed his notice of appeal on October 3, 2013.
Because Cole failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain
an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal as
untimely. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
*
We note that the appeal period in a criminal case is not a
jurisdictional provision, but, rather, a claim-processing rule.
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209-14 (2007); Rice v. Rivera,
617 F.3d 802, 810 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Urutyan, 564
F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009). Because Cole’s appeal is
inordinately late, and its consideration is not in the best
interest of judicial economy, we exercise our inherent power to
dismiss it. United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744, 750
(10th Cir. 2008).
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3