UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4057
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BRIAN DAVID HILL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:13-cr-00435-WO-1)
Submitted: March 30, 2015 Decided: April 7, 2015
Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Mark A. Jones, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, PA, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anand P. Ramaswamy, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brian David Hill appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion for an extension of time to appeal his conviction and
sentence. Upon review, we conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in denying Hill’s motion. Accordingly,
we affirm this portion of the appeal for the reasons stated by
the district court. United States v. Hill, No. 1:13-cr-00435-
WO-1 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 16, 2015).
To the extent Hill also seeks to appeal the criminal
judgment entered against him, the Government has moved to
dismiss that portion of the appeal as untimely. In criminal
cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within 14
days after the entry of judgment or the order being appealed.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). Upon a showing of excusable neglect
or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of no
more than 30 additional days to file a notice of appeal. Fed.
R. App. P. 4(b)(4), 26(b).
The district court entered the criminal judgment on
November 12, 2014. Hill filed a notice of appeal on January 29,
2015, well beyond the expiration of the appeal and excusable
neglect periods. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to
dismiss this portion of the appeal as untimely because Hill
2
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension
of the appeal period. *
We deny Hill’s motions to strike and to proceed pro se and
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
*
Even if we construe the January 12, 2015 motion for an
extension of time as a notice of appeal from the criminal
judgment, the appeal still is untimely as to the criminal
judgment.
3