UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7860
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SIDNEY DERROD EVANS, a/k/a Dooley,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District
Judge. (2:02-cr-00225-AWA-2)
Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 19, 2012
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Sidney Derrod Evans, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Sidney Derrod Evans appeals the district court’s order
denying as moot his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for
reduction of sentence. On appeal, we confine our review to the
issues raised in the appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Because Evans’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for
the district court’s disposition, Evans has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s order. United States v. Evans, No. 2:02-cr-
00225-AWA-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 3, 2012).
To the extent Evans seeks to appeal the district
court’s July 18, 2003 judgment imposing a 331-month prison term
and its March 26, 2010 order granting his § 3582(c)(2) motion
and reducing his sentence to 295 months’ imprisonment, 1 his
notice of appeal is untimely. The notice was filed in October
2012, after the expiration of the ten-day period for appealing
the July 18 judgment, Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i) (2008), and
the fourteen-day period for appealing the March 26 order. Fed.
R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i) (2009); see United States v. Alvarez,
210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that a § 3582
1
The district court clerk treated Evans’ notice of appeal
as seeking to appeal the district court’s October 3, 2012 order
denying as moot his § 3582(c)(2) motion, the court’s July 18
judgment, and the court’s March 26 order granting Evans’
§ 3582(c)(2) motion and reducing his sentence.
2
proceeding is criminal in nature and that the Rule 4(b)(1)(A)
appeal period applies). Accordingly, insofar as Evans seeks to
appeal the July 18 judgment and the March 26 order, we dismiss
his appeal as untimely. 2
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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
2
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 Evans’
appeal of the July 18 judgment and the March 26 order 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