Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06844/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06844-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stanley Hickman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6844

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STANLEY HICKMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:93-cr-00144-BO-3)

Submitted: March 10, 2010 Decided: April 8, 2010

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Hickman, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Robert Jack Higdon, Jr., 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-6844 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/08/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Hickman appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion to correct the presentence report.∗

AFFIRMED

 We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Hickman, No. 5:93-cr-00144-BO-3 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 

2009). 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.

 ∗ We previously remanded this case for the district court to 

determine whether Hickman demonstrated excusable neglect or good 

cause warranting an extension of the appeal period. Without 

giving Hickman an opportunity to respond, the district court 

found no excusable neglect. Because the time limits of Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(b) are not jurisdictional, United States v. Urutyan, 

564 F.3d 679, 683-86 (4th Cir. 2009), and the government has not 

moved to dismiss the appeal, we decline to dismiss the appeal as 

untimely and instead address the merits of the appeal.

Appeal: 09-6844 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/08/2010 Pg: 2 of 2