UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4533
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY GRANT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:05-cr-00425-PMD-1)
Submitted: February 2, 2012 Decided: February 21, 2012
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Wallace H. Jordan, Jr., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Peter Thomas Phillips, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Grant seeks to appeal his conviction and the
180-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to a violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (c)(1) (2006).
Additionally, he appeals the district court’s denial of his
post-conviction motion challenging the district court’s
jurisdiction. The Government seeks to dismiss the appeal as
untimely. We dismiss the appeal of Grant’s conviction and
sentence and affirm the district court’s denial of Grant’s post-
conviction motion.
In criminal cases, the defendant must file a 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
showing 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 in Grant’s case on December 8, 2005. Grant did not
file a notice of appeal until 2011. Because Grant failed to
file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the
*
Under the previous version of Fed. R. App. P. 4, in effect
at the time of Grant’s sentencing, the limitation period was ten
days. Grant’s appeal is untimely under both versions of the
rule.
2
appeal period, and the Government has sought enforcement of the
time limit for filing a notice of appeal, see United States v.
Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744 (10th Cir. 2008), we dismiss the
appeal of Grant’s conviction and sentence.
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Grant timely filed a notice of appeal of the district court’s
order denying his post-conviction motion. We further conclude
that the district court did not err in denying Grant’s motion.
We therefore affirm the April 28, 2011 order of the district
court. 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 IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART
3