United States of America v. Luis Arias-Bustamante

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7123
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LUIS ARIAS-BUSTAMANTE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:10-cr-00021-REP-3)
Submitted: October 14, 2015 Decided: November 6, 2015
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Luis Arias-Bustamante, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia L. Norman,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Luis Arias-Bustamante seeks to appeal his 2010 criminal
judgment imposed following his guilty plea to attempt to possess
with intent to distribute cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). In criminal cases, the defendant must
file the notice of appeal within 14 days after the entry of
judgment. 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 August 25, 2010.
Arias-Bustamante filed his notice of appeal on July 8, 2015,
nearly five years after entry of the criminal judgment.1 Because
Arias-Bustamante failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal
as untimely.2 Arias-Bustamante’s motions for appointment of
1 This is the date that Arias-Bustamante certifies that he
placed the notice of appeal in the prison mail system. A pro se
prisoner’s notice of appeal is considered filed at the moment it
is delivered to prison authorities for mailing to the court.
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988); Fed. R. App. P. 4(c).
2 We note that 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).
Because Arias-Bustamante’s appeal is inordinately late, and its
consideration is not in the best interest of judicial economy,
(Continued)

-- 2 of 3 --

3
counsel and for consideration of his notice of appeal for good
cause are denied. 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
we exercise our inherent power to dismiss it. United States v.
Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744, 750 (10th Cir. 2008).

-- 3 of 3 --