Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07289/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07289-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond Edward Chestnut
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7289

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray,

Defendant – Appellant.

No. 15-7290

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray,

Defendant – Appellant.

No. 15-7376

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Appeal: 15-7289 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pg: 1 of 5
2

RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District 

of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District 

Judge. (4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1)

Submitted: November 24, 2015 Decided: May 9, 2016

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

No. 15-7289, dismissed; No. 15-7290, vacated and remanded; No. 

15-7376, affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Edward Chestnut, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley,

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, 

Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7289 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pg: 2 of 5
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Raymond Edward Chestnut 

challenges several orders entered in his criminal case. Turning 

first to Appeal No. 15-7289, Chestnut seeks to appeal the July 

26, 2010, amended criminal judgment. In criminal cases, the 

defendant must file the notice of appeal within 14 days after 

the entry of judgment. With or without a motion, upon a showing 

of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant 

an extension of up to 30 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 judgment on July 26, 2010. 

Chestnut filed his notice of appeal five years after entry of 

the criminal judgment.* Because Chestnut’s notice of appeal is 

inordinately late, we dismiss Appeal No. 15-7289. 

 * Chestnut’s notice of appeal is dated August 4, 2010, and,

in his informal brief, Chestnut alleges that he filed the notice 

of appeal on August 4, 2010. However, the certificate of 

service attached to the notice of appeal is dated August 4, 

2015, the envelope was date stamped by the prison on August 10, 

2015, and postmarked August 11, 2015. The notice of appeal was 

date stamped “received” by the district court on August 14, 

2015. Chestnut’s representation that he filed his notice of 

appeal on August 4, 2010, simply is not credible.

Appeal: 15-7289 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pg: 3 of 5
4

On July 21, 2015, the district court entered a text order 

denying several postjudgment motions. In Appeal No. 15-7290, 

Chestnut appeals from the portion of this text order denying his 

Motion to Vacate Sentence and Remand for Re-Sentencing (“Motion 

to Vacate”), which was dated June 9, 2015, and entered on the 

district court’s docket on June 15, 2015, and from the court’s 

August 3, 2015, text order denying Chestnut’s motion for 

reconsideration of the denial of his Motion to Vacate. The 

district court denied the Motion to Vacate on the merits. 

However, because the motion was an unauthorized successive 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, the district lacked jurisdiction to 

consider it. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(a), 2255(h) (2012).

Accordingly, we vacate both the portion of the July 21, 2015, 

text order denying the Motion to Vacate and the text order 

denying the motion for reconsideration, and remand with 

directions for the district court to dismiss the Motion to 

Vacate without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Finally, in Appeal No. 15-7376, Chestnut appeals the 

portion of the district court’s July 21, 2015, text order 

denying his Motion to Set Aside Judgement and Enter a New One. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, in Appeal No. 15-7376, we affirm on the reasoning 

of the district court. United States v. Chestnut, No. 4:05-cr01044-RBH-1 (D.S.C. July 21, 2015).

Appeal: 15-7289 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pg: 4 of 5
5

Chestnut’s motion for a transcript at Government expense is 

denied. 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. 

NO. 15-7289, DISMISSED;

NO. 15-7290, VACATED AND REMANDED;

NO. 15-7376, AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-7289 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pg: 5 of 5