Opinion
No. 19-4781
04-29-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC BRANCH, a/k/a Cream, Defendant - Appellant.
Sean P. Vitrano, VITRANO LAW OFFICES, PLLC, Wake Forest, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00339-D-1) Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean P. Vitrano, VITRANO LAW OFFICES, PLLC, Wake Forest, North Carolina, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Eric Branch seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. 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). Because 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), we generally decline to dismiss an untimely criminal appeal absent a motion from the Government, United States v. Oliver, 878 F.3d 120, 129 (4th Cir. 2017). However, when adjudicating an untimely criminal appeal "would significantly implicate the efficiency and integrity of the judicial process," id. at 127, we may exercise our inherent authority to dismiss the appeal sua sponte, id. at 128-29.
The district court entered judgment on June 2, 2014. Branch filed the notice of appeal on October 16, 2019. Because Branch failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, the appeal is untimely. Although the Government has not invoked the appeal's untimeliness, we conclude that this appeal presents one of the circumstances that warrants sua sponte dismissal, see id., and we therefore dismiss the appeal as untimely. 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