United States of America v. William Junior Jacobs, a/k/a Boogie

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4692
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM JUNIOR JACOBS, a/k/a Boogie,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (3:03-cr-00036-1)
Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 4, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul C. Pooley, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy
Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville,
North Carolina, Thomas Tullidge Cullen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

*Jacobs filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion alleging his
trial counsel ignored his request to file a notice of appeal from
his criminal judgment. The district court granted the § 2255
motion to allow Jacobs to appeal from an amended judgment. The
court’s order instructed a notice of appeal must be filed within
ten days of the court’s order.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
William Junior Jacobs seeks to appeal his conviction and
sentence. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of
appeal within ten 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 thirty 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 its amended judgment * on
December 15, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on June 23,
2006. Because Jacobs failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --