Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Orlando WALLACE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-15
Citations: 306 F. App'x 822
Docket Number: No. 08-7101
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Orlando WALLACE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 306
Pages: 822–823

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Orlando WALLACE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-7101.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.
Decided: Jan. 15, 2009.
Orlando Wallace, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Orlando Wallace seeks to appeal the district court's sealed order. 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); see United States v. Little, 392 F.3d 671, 680-81 (4th Cir.2004) (applying ten-day appeal period to appeal from Rule 35 ruling). 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 its order on February 29, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on June 6, 2008. Because Wal lace failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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.
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).