UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4223

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHAUNCEY HAWKINS, a/k/a Loon,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:11-cr-00135-F-1)

Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2014

Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Neal Gary Rosensweig, NEIL GARY ROSENSWEIG, P.A., Hollywood, 

Florida, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant 

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Chauncey Hawkins seeks to appeal his conviction and 

the 168-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to 

distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 846 (2012). Hawkins’ counsel has filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but 

questioning the voluntariness of Hawkins’ guilty plea and the 

reasonableness of the sentence. Hawkins has filed a pro se 

supplemental brief. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal 

as untimely, which Hawkins opposes.*

 We dismiss the appeal.

In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice 

of appeal within fourteen 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 

 * In his pro se response to the motion to dismiss, Hawkins 

asserts that his trial counsel failed to file a notice of appeal 

after being directed to do so and that, as a result, we should 

consider his appeal on the merits. We decline to do so. 

Hawkins should present his ineffective assistance of counsel

claim, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion filed in 

the district court. We express no view on the ultimate 

disposition of any such motion.
3

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 25, 2013. 

The notice of appeal was filed on March 10, 2014. Because 

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

extension of the appeal period, we grant the Government’s motion 

to dismiss the appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as untimely. We 

deny without prejudice counsel’s motion to withdraw. This court 

requires that counsel inform Hawkins, in writing, of the right 

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further 

review. If Hawkins requests that a petition be filed, but 

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then 

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Hawkins. 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.

DISMISSED