UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7470
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY MOORE, a/k/a Ant,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:02-cr-00225-AWA-9)
Submitted: February 29, 2016 Decided: March 4, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Moore appeals the district court’s order denying
his post-judgment motions to suspend and disbar and to dismiss
his indictment. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Moore, No. 2:02-cr-
00225-AWA-9 (E.D. Va. Jan. 29, 2015).
Moore also appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion to reconsider its order denying his post-judgment
motions. In criminal cases, the defendant must file his notice
of appeal within 14 days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R.
App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). The district court entered its order
denying Moore’s post-judgment motions on January 29, 2015. The
14-day appeal period expired on February 12, 2015. See Fed. R.
App. P. 26(a). Moore did not file his motion to reconsider
until, at the earliest, February 24, 2015. *
“[T]he Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not
specifically provide for motions for reconsideration and
prescribe the time in which they must be filed.” Nilson Van &
Storage Co. v. Marsh, 755 F.2d 362, 364 (4th Cir. 1985).
*For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the motion to reconsider is the earliest date it
could have been properly delivered to prison officials for
mailing to the court. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276
(1988).
2
However, the Supreme Court has held that a motion for rehearing
or reconsideration extends the time for filing a notice of
appeal in a criminal case if the motion is filed before the
order sought to be reconsidered becomes final. See United
States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1, 4 n.2 (1991) (per curiam) (holding
that would-be appellants who file a timely motion for
reconsideration from a criminal judgment are entitled to a full
time period for noticing the appeal after the motion for
reconsideration has been decided); United States v. Dieter,
429 U.S. 6, 7-8 (1976) (same); United States v. Christy, 3 F.3d
765, 767 n.1 (4th Cir. 1993) (same). Because Moore did not
timely file the motion to reconsider, the district court should
have denied the motion as untimely. We therefore affirm the
denial of the motion to reconsider on the ground that the motion
was untimely.
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
3