Case ID: f-appx_56/html/0169-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro Rubio SERRANO, a/k/a Pedro Serrano Rubio, a/k/a Tico, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4596.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 7, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 25, 2003.
    
      J. Clark Fischer, Randolph & Fischer, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Pedro Rubio Serrano seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. His attorney has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), alleging that there are no meritorious issues on appeal. In criminal cases, the defendant must file his notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). For thirty days thereafter, the district court may grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal 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).

The district court entered its judgment on April 15, 2002; the ten-day appeal period expired on April 29, 2002, and the thirty-day excusable neglect period expired on May 29, 2002. Thus, Serrano’s notice appeal filed on June 8, 2002, is untimely, and we dismiss the appeal on that basis.

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his rights to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

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. 
      
       Giving Serrano the most liberal interpretation of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), June 8, 2002, is the earliest date his notice of appeal could have been filed.