Case ID: f-appx_421/html/0261-02.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. Marvin Deon HAWKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-6966.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 31, 2011.
    Decided: April 5, 2011.
    
      Kenneth L. Singleton, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Richard Daniel Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.'
    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Deon Hawkins appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to correct his presentence report. For the reasons that follow we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

We affirm the district court’s denial of Hawkins’ motion to correct his presen-tence report (“PSR”). As noted by the district court, the motion was filed far outside the time period allowed for such motions. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(f)(1) (noting that any challenges to a PSR should be filed within fourteen days of receiving the document).

To the extent Hawkins seeks to contest his 114-month sentence, imposed in December 2007, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal as being untimely filed. Hawkins’ notice of appeal, whether filed in June or July of 2010, falls far outside the appeal period allowed for a criminal judgment, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A), and the time period allowed for excusable neglect or good cause. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir.1985). Thus, we dismiss the appeal of Hawkins’ sentence as untimely.

We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.