Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-04811/USCOURTS-ca4-14-04811-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cedric Lee Locklear
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4811

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CEDRIC LEE LOCKLEAR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (7:13-cr-00032-FL-3)

Submitted: February 1, 2017 Decided: February 6, 2017

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David L. Neal, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4811 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/06/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Cedric Lee Locklear seeks to appeal his conviction and 

sentence. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal based 

on the appellate waiver in Locklear’s plea agreement. In a 

criminal case, a defendant must file his notice of appeal within 

14 days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 

4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, the district court may 

extend the time in which to file a notice of appeal for an 

additional 30 days from the expiration of this time period upon 

a finding 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 judgment on December 19, 2013. 

The notice of appeal was filed on October 24, 2014.* As Locklear 

failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an

extension or reopening of the appeal period in the district 

court, we dismiss the appeal. We thus grant the Government’s 

motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

 * See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (prisoner’s 

notice of appeal filed at the time it is delivered to prison 

officials for mailing).

Appeal: 14-4811 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/06/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-4811 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/06/2017 Pg: 3 of 3