Court Opinion

ID: 9389405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 17:01:12.354529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:26.877447
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4389      Doc: 36         Filed: 04/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4389

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ANDRE CHRISTOPHER BROWN,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00386-RDB-1)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                         Decided: April 24, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Justin Eisele, SEDDIQ LAW FIRM, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant.
        Brandon Keith Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4389      Doc: 36         Filed: 04/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Andre Christopher Brown pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to an

        information charging him with possession of a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

        § 922(j), and the district court sentenced him to 96 months’ imprisonment. Brown’s

        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 district court erred

        by failing to consider one of Brown’s nonfrivolous arguments in mitigation. Brown was

        advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. 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)(i). 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 a nonjurisdictional 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).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4389      Doc: 36          Filed: 04/24/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

               The district court entered the criminal judgment on September 1, 2021. Brown filed

        his notice of appeal on June 27, 2022. 1 Because Brown failed to file a timely notice of

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

        moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, see 4th Cir. R. 27(f)(2), we grant the

        Government’s motion and dismiss the appeal. 2

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

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

               1
                 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the postmark
        is the earliest date Brown could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to
        the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1)(A)(ii); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
               2
                 Because we conclude that the appeal is untimely, we need not consider whether it
        is also barred by the appellate waiver in Brown’s plea agreement.

                                                      3