United States of America v. Willie Barrett

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8264
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIE BARRETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (4:04-cr-00087-H-3)
Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 26, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Barrett, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Willie Barrett seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motions for clarification of sentence, for
transcripts, and to proceed in forma pauperis. 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).1
The district court entered judgment on August 4, 2009.
The notice of appeal was filed on November 4, 2009.
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).
2
1 Rule 4(b)(1)(A) was amended effective December 1, 2009, to
provide a period of fourteen calendar days to file a notice of
appeal. This amendment does not affect the timeliness of
Barrett’s notice of appeal.
Because
Barrett 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
2 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to
the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --