Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-13-07644/USCOURTS-ca4-13-07644-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kalu Kalu
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7644

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KALU KALU,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:09-cr-00061-D-1)

Submitted: October 23, 2014 Decided: January 16, 2015

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Kalu Kalu, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7644 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/16/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kalu Kalu seeks to appeal the order in garnishment 

entered to enforce the restitution order imposed as part of 

Kalu’s criminal judgment. In criminal cases, a defendant must 

file his notice of appeal within fourteen days after the entry 

of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). With or without a 

motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the 

district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to 

file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United 

States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985).

The district court entered the order in garnishment on 

the docket on April 4, 2012. Kalu filed the notice of appeal on

October 28, 2013.1

 Because Kalu failed to file a timely notice 

of appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period, we 

dismiss the appeal of the order in garnishment.2

 1 We construe Kalu’s informal brief as a notice of appeal. 

See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992) (holding that 

appellate brief may serve as notice of appeal under certain 

circumstances). Furthermore, we conclude that Kalu could not 

have delivered the informal brief to prison officials for 

mailing to the court before he signed it on October 28, 2013. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 

(1988). 

2 Although the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a 

criminal case is not a jurisdictional requirement, United 

States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009), Kalu’s 

appeal is inordinately late. Accordingly, we exercise our 

inherent power to dismiss it. United States v. Mitchell, 518 

F.3d 740, 750 (10th Cir. 2008). 

Appeal: 13-7644 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/16/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Kalu also seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his motion for reconsideration. Finding no reversible 

error, we affirm the district court’s order denying Kalu’s 

motion for reconsideration. United States v. Kalu, No. 5:09-cr00061-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 27, 2013). 

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

Appeal: 13-7644 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/16/2015 Pg: 3 of 3