Full text
United States v. Martinez Black
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4280 Doc: 32 Filed: 11/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4280
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARTINEZ ORLANDIS BLACK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00364-RJC-1)
Submitted: November 16, 2023 Decided: November 22, 2023
Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Jenna Turner Blue, BLUE LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, Elizabeth Margaret Greenough, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4280 Doc: 32 Filed: 11/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Martinez Orlandis Black pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to being
a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court
sentenced Black, in 2007, to 120 months in prison. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds
for appeal but raising as possible issues for review whether Black was prejudiced by a
multiplicitous indictment and the district court’s Rehaif ∗ error and challenging the
reasonableness of the imposed sentence. Black has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising
several claims, including that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. The
Government has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely.
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 extend the appeal period
by up to 30 days. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). Although 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), “[w]hen the Government promptly invokes
the rule in response to a late-filed criminal appeal, we must dismiss,” United States v.
Oliver, 878 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 2017); see United States v. Hyman, 884 F.3d 496, 500
(4th Cir. 2018) (granting Government’s motion to dismiss appeal, which was filed within
the time allowed by 4th Cir. R. 27(f)).
∗ Rehaif v. United States, 588 U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019).
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4280 Doc: 32 Filed: 11/22/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
The district court entered the criminal judgment on September 4, 2007. Black filed
his pro se notice of appeal on November 17, 2022. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston
v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Because Black failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, and the Government has promptly invoked
the appeal’s untimeliness, see 4th Cir. R. 27(f)(2) (“Motions to dismiss based upon the
ground that the appeal is not within the jurisdiction of the Court . . . should be filed within
the time allowed for the filing of the response brief.”); 4th Cir. R. 31(a) (affording appellee
21 days to respond to appellant’s opening brief), we grant the Government’s motion to
dismiss the appeal. 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.