UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4905
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY A. HOPKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:04-cr-00267-FDW-DCK-1; 3:04-cr-00268-FDW-CH-
1)
Submitted: January 9, 2012 Decided: January 13, 2012
Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey A. Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael E. Savage,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey A. Hopkins seeks to appeal his seventy-two-
month sentence pursuant to a guilty plea to conspiracy to
defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006), mail fraud,
18 U.S.C. § 1341 (2006), and conspiracy to commit money
laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (2006). In criminal cases, a
defendant must file his notice of appeal within fourteen days
after the entry of judgment. 1 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 criminal judgment on
the docket on April 25, 2007. Hopkins filed a pro se notice of
appeal on September 1, 2011, over four years after the appeal
period expired. 2 Because Hopkins failed to file a timely notice
1
At the time judgment was entered, the appeal period was
ten days. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i) (2007). On December 1,
2009, the period was extended to fourteen days. Fed. R. App. P.
4(b)(1)(A)(i) (2009). Hopkins’ notice of appeal was untimely
under either period.
2
This is the date that appears on the envelope Hopkins gave
to prison officials for mailing the notice of appeal to the
district court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266, 276 (1988).
2
of appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal. 3 We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
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); United States v.
Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009). Because Hopkins’
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).
3