United States v. Saquan Alexander

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 4, 2018
Docket16-4638
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Saquan Alexander (United States v. Saquan Alexander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Saquan Alexander, (4th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4638

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SAQUAN JAVAR ALEXANDER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-cr-00381-FL-1)

Submitted: March 14, 2018 Decided: April 4, 2018

Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John H. Tinney, Jr., HENDRICKSON & LONG, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Saquan Javar Alexander seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. 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); United States v. Reyes,

759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985).

The district court entered judgment on June 13, 2016. The notice of appeal was

filed on September 18, 2016. Because Alexander failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, 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 in the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Jose v. Reyes
759 F.2d 351 (Fourth Circuit, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Saquan Alexander, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-saquan-alexander-ca4-2018.