Court Opinion

ID: 9902180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-23 22:00:30.403861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:46.842773
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4280      Doc: 32         Filed: 11/22/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4280

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MARTINEZ ORLANDIS BLACK,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00364-RJC-1)

        Submitted: November 16, 2023                                Decided: November 22, 2023

        Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Jenna Turner Blue, BLUE LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy
        Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, Elizabeth
        Margaret Greenough, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
        North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4280        Doc: 32         Filed: 11/22/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Martinez Orlandis Black pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to being

        a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court

        sentenced Black, in 2007, to 120 months in prison. 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 raising as possible issues for review whether Black was prejudiced by a

        multiplicitous indictment and the district court’s Rehaif ∗ error and challenging the

        reasonableness of the imposed sentence. Black has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising

        several claims, including that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance.       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 extend the appeal period

        by up to 30 days. 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)).

               ∗
                   Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019).

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4280         Doc: 32       Filed: 11/22/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

               The district court entered the criminal judgment on September 4, 2007. Black filed

        his pro se notice of appeal on November 17, 2022. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston

        v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Because Black 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) (“Motions to dismiss based upon the

        ground that the appeal is not within the jurisdiction of the Court . . . should be filed within

        the time allowed for the filing of the response brief.”); 4th Cir. R. 31(a) (affording appellee

        21 days to respond to appellant’s opening brief), 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

                                                      3