Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06138/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06138-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mary Alice Avery
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6138

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARY ALICE AVERY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg,

District Judge. (3:00-cr-00210-LHT)

Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 29, 2008

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Alice Avery, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United

States Attorney, C. Nick Williams, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6138 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/29/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mary Alice Avery seeks to appeal from her judgment of

conviction, which order was entered by the district court on

October 16, 2002. Specifically, she seeks to challenge her

sentence under Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007).

Avery’s notice of appeal was filed on December 17, 2007. In

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

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

With or without a motion, the court may grant an extension of time

to file of up to thirty days upon a showing of excusable neglect.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353

(4th Cir. 1985). Because Avery failed to file a timely notice of

appeal, we dismiss the appeal. However, this decision is rendered

without prejudice to Avery’s ability to pursue relief under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We also deny Avery’s motion for

appointment of counsel. 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: 08-6138 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/29/2008 Pg: 2 of 2