UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-5126

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff – Appellee, 

v. 

RANDY KENDRELL SIMPSON, a/k/a Cheese, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 11-5029

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff – Appellee, 

v. 

RANDY KENDRELL SIMPSON, a/k/a Cheese, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:96-cr-00011-NCT-1)

Submitted: March 7, 2012 Decided: March 22, 2012

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 
2

No. 09-5126 dismissed; No. 11-5029 affirmed by unpublished per 

curiam opinion. 

Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, PA, Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Francis Joseph, Angela Hewlett 

Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
3

PER CURIAM: 

In these consolidated appeals, Randy Kendrell Simpson 

seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment revoking his 

supervised release and imposing a forty-two-month prison term

and a forty-eight-month term of supervised release (No. 09-5126) 

and appeals the court’s subsequent order denying an extension of 

time to appeal the judgment of revocation (No. 11-5029). The 

Government has moved to dismiss Simpson’s appeal of the judgment 

of revocation as untimely. 

In criminal cases, the defendant must file a notice of 

appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i) (applicable to notices of appeal filed 

before Dec. 1, 2009). 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 the judgment of revocation 

on October 8, 2009. Simpson filed his notice of appeal on 

November 19, 2009, outside of the ten-day appeal period but 

within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. We previously 

remanded this case to the district court for that court to 

determine whether Simpson could show good cause or excusable 

neglect warranting an extension of the appeal period. On 
4

remand, the district court concluded that an extension of the 

appeal period was not warranted. After a careful review of the 

record, we find no abuse of discretion in that decision. 

See United States v. Breit, 754 F.2d 526, 529 (4th Cir. 1985) 

(stating the standard of review). Accordingly, in No. 11-5029, 

we affirm the district court’s order. 

Because Simpson failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal from the district court’s judgment revoking his 

supervised release or to obtain an extension of the appeal 

period, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss and 

supplemental motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal in No. 

09-5126. See United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744 

(10th Cir. 2008) (stating that the time limit in Rule 4(b) “must 

be enforced by th[e] court when properly invoked by the 

government”). 

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. 

No. 09-5126 DISMISSED;

No. 11-5029 AFFIRMED