Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-08071/USCOURTS-ca4-06-08071-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Earl Davis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-8071

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TIMOTHY EARL DAVIS, a/k/a Black,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (4:99-cr-00027-H)

Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 20, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter A. Schmidlin III, ANDERSON, JONES & GENGO, PLLC, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-8071 Doc: 10000 Filed: 11/20/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
*Davis was accorded the benefit of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.

266 (1988), as September 15, 2005 was the date he certified he gave

his notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Earl Davis seeks to appeal his sentence. In

criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within

ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A).

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 an amended judgment on

December 6, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on September 15,

2005.* Because Davis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.

We also deny Davis’ motion to strike counsel’s appellate brief. 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.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 06-8071 Doc: 10000 Filed: 11/20/2007 Pg: 2 of 2