UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7644
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KALU KALU,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:09-cr-00061-D-1)
Submitted: October 23, 2014 Decided: January 16, 2015
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Kalu Kalu, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III, Assistant
United States Attorney, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kalu Kalu seeks to appeal the order in garnishment
entered to enforce the restitution order imposed as part of
Kalu’s criminal judgment. In criminal cases, a defendant must
file his notice of appeal within fourteen days after 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 the order in garnishment on
the docket on April 4, 2012. Kalu filed the notice of appeal on
October 28, 2013. 1 Because Kalu failed to file a timely notice
of appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal of the order in garnishment. 2
1
We construe Kalu’s informal brief as a notice of appeal.
See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992) (holding that
appellate brief may serve as notice of appeal under certain
circumstances). Furthermore, we conclude that Kalu could not
have delivered the informal brief to prison officials for
mailing to the court before he signed it on October 28, 2013.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276
(1988).
2
Although the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a
criminal case is not a jurisdictional requirement, United
States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009), Kalu’s
appeal is inordinately late. Accordingly, we exercise our
inherent power to dismiss it. United States v. Mitchell, 518
F.3d 740, 750 (10th Cir. 2008).
2
Kalu also seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion for reconsideration. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm the district court’s order denying Kalu’s
motion for reconsideration. United States v. Kalu, No. 5:09-cr-
00061-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 27, 2013).
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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3