Court Opinion

ID: 9956777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 21:00:37.165492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:51.312843
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4657      Doc: 24         Filed: 04/01/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4657

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        CHRISTOPHER CLAMON BRIDGES,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:18-cr-00305-LCB-2)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                         Decided: April 1, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: George E. Crump, III, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Margaret
        McCall Reece, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4657       Doc: 24          Filed: 04/01/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Christopher Clamon Bridges seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment revoking

        his supervised release and imposing a 24-month revocation sentence. On appeal, counsel

        has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there

        are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the revocation sentence is

        plainly unreasonable. Although notified of his right to do so, Bridges has not filed a pro

        se supplemental brief. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely.

               In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within 14 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 30 days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). Although the appeal

        period in a criminal case is not a jurisdictional provision, but rather a claim-processing rule,

        United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009), “[w]hen the Government

        promptly invokes the rule in response to a late-filed criminal appeal, we must dismiss,”

        United States v. Oliver, 878 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 2017); see United States v. Hyman,

        884 F.3d 496, 500 (4th Cir. 2018) (granting Government’s motion to dismiss appeal, which

        was filed within the time allowed by 4th Cir. R. 27(f)).

               The district court entered judgment on December 27, 2022. Bridges filed the notice

        of appeal on October 6, 2023. ∗ Because Bridges failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

               ∗
                For the purposes of this appeal, we assume that the earliest date appearing on the
        notice of appeal is the date Bridges delivered his notice to prison officials for mailing to
        the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4657      Doc: 24         Filed: 04/01/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

        to obtain an extension of the appeal period and the Government has promptly invoked the

        appeal’s untimeliness, see 4th Cir. R. 27(f)(2), we grant the Government’s motion to

        dismiss the appeal, see Oliver, 878 F.3d at 123.

               This court requires that counsel inform Bridges, in writing, of the right to petition

        the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Bridges 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 Bridges. 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

                                                     3