Filed: Jan. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 16, 2015
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Kalu Kalu seeks to appeal the order in garnishment entered to enforce the restitution order imposed as part of Kalu's criminal judgment. In criminal cases, a defendant must file his notice of appeal within fourteen days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Kalu Kalu seeks to appeal the order in garnishment entered to enforce the restitution order imposed as part of Kalu's criminal judgment. In criminal cases, a defendant must file his notice of appeal within fourteen days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Kalu Kalu seeks to appeal the order in garnishment entered to enforce the restitution order imposed as part of Kalu's criminal judgment. In criminal cases, a defendant must file his notice of appeal within fourteen days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). 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).
The district court entered the order in garnishment on the docket on April 4, 2012. Kalu filed the notice of appeal on October 28, 2013.1 Because Kalu failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal of the order in garnishment.2
Kalu also seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the district court's order denying Kalu's motion for reconsideration. United States v. Kalu, No. 5:09-cr-00061-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 27, 2013).
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.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
