United States v. David Robert Brown, 807 F.2d 175, 4th Cir. (1986)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. David Robert Brown, 807 F.2d 175, 4th Cir. (1986)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs807 F.
2d 175
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of
unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
David Robert BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 86-5100.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 19, 1986.
Decided Dec. 10, 1986.
Before WIDENER, PHILLIPS and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.
David Robert Brown, appellant pro se.
Charles Robinson Brewer, Office of the U.S. Attorney, for appellee.
PER CURIAM:
David Robert Brown appeals the district court's imposition of sentence on his
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343 conviction pursuant to his guilty plea. Brown was
sentenced on June 2, 1986; however, he did not file his notice of appeal until
June 19, 1986.
Under Fed.R.App.P. (4)(b), notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed in
the district court within ten days from the entry of judgment. Upon a showing
of excusable neglect, the district court may extend the time of filing by an
additional thirty days. On July 1, 1986 Brown filed, in the district court, a
request for an extension of time for filing his notice of appeal. The court
subsequently denied the request, finding no excusable neglect for Brown's
delay.
The question before this Court is whether the trial judge abused his discretion
in denying Brown's request for an extension of time within which to note his
appeal. Buckley v. United States, 382 F.2d 611 (10th Cir.1967), cert. denied,
390 U.S. 997 (1968); Lowry v. Long Island R.R., 370 F.2d 911 (2d Cir.1966);
Nichols-Morris Corp. v. Morris, 279 F.2d 81 (2d Cir.1960). Brown's request
for an extension gives no reasons for his delay in noting a timely appeal. The
district court did not, therefore, abuse its discretion in refusing to find excusable
neglect for the delay which would warrant granting an extension of time. Thus,
this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Brown's appeal.
Because the dispositive issues have recently been decided authoritatively we
dispense with oral argument, grant the government's motion to dismiss, and
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.
