Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 08-02-JJB
12-13-2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. COREY PEMBROOK
RULING AND ORDER
Defendant Corey Pembrook has filed a pro se pleading (doc. 199) which the courts construes as a motion for out-of-time appeal.
The untimeliness of an appeal is a matter that the district court may address and enforce. See, U.S. v. Martinez-Luna, 329 Fed. Appx. 548 (5th Cir. 2009).
The record reveals that judgment was entered in August of 2010 and the notice of appeal was filed some 15 months later in November of 2011. While a defendant may move for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4), such a motion must be filed within 30 days of the time prescribed for appeal. Under the circumstances, the motion (as construed by the court) is clearly untimely.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motions (doc. 199) for out-of-time appeal be and is hereby DENIED.
Defendant's pleading contains many inconsistencies and is difficult to understand. As defendant claims errors in sentencing, the court interprets the pleading as one seeking an appeal. It also appears that defendant would like to pursue ineffective assistance of counsel claims under 28 USC §2255. While such a motion would likely be untimely as well, the court leaves this question for later determination in the event that defendant files a motion under §2255.
--------
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 13, 2011.
____________________
JAMES BRADY, JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA