UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7566
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KEVIN MCDONALD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:04-cr-00255-JRS-2)
Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: May 9, 2012
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin McDonald, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller,
Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
On June 9, 2011, the district court entered an order
denying Kevin McDonald’s “host of frivolous Motions.” In its
order, the district court denied both criminal and civil
motions. Parties in a civil action in which the United States
is a party have sixty days following a final order in which to
file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). The only
exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court
extends the time to appeal based upon excusable neglect or good
cause under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal
period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). In contrast, parties in a
criminal action have only fourteen days to file a notice of
appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion,
the district court may grant an extension of time to file a
notice of appeal of up to thirty days upon a showing of
excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4);
United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985).
McDonald filed his notice of appeal, at the earliest,
sixty-eight days after the district court entered judgment. See
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (noting that a
prisoner “files” a notice of appeal on the date he submits the
notice to prison officials for mailing). Thus, McDonald’s
notice of appeal was filed after both the civil and criminal
appeal periods had expired, as well as after the expiration of
2
the criminal excusable neglect period. McDonald has not moved
for an extension or reopening of the appeal period. We conclude
that McDonald’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, and we
therefore dismiss the appeal. 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