Court Opinion

ID: 9895132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-04 21:00:28.951664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:20.724689
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4191      Doc: 29         Filed: 11/03/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4191

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        PAUL WESLEY HOWELL,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Elizabeth W. Hanes, District Judge. (2:22-cr-00051-EWH-DEM-1)

        Submitted: October 31, 2023                                  Decided: November 3, 2023

        Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Dennis E. Jones, DENNIS E. JONES, PLC, Abingdon, Virginia, for
        Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Kristin Greene
        Bird, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Amanda L. Cheney, Assistant United States
        Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, Jacqueline Romy Bechara, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4191       Doc: 29          Filed: 11/03/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

                Paul Wesley Howell pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

         distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and

         possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g),

         924(a)(2). The district court sentenced Howell to 110 months’ imprisonment. 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 a factual

         basis supported Howell’s convictions, whether plea counsel rendered ineffective

         assistance, and whether the sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable. The

         Government has moved to dismiss the appeal because Howell did not file a timely notice

         of appeal.

               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).

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4191         Doc: 29     Filed: 11/03/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

              The district court entered judgment on December 8, 2022. Howell filed the notice

        of appeal on March 13, 2023. ∗ Because Howell failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

        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.

              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

              ∗
                For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of
        appeal is the earliest date Howell could have delivered the 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).
                                                    3