Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Peter Paul, 99-6257 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-6257 Visitors: 73
Filed: Jul. 14, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6257 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PETER PAUL, a/k/a Paul Alexander, a/k/a Slug- gie, a/k/a Peter P. Alexander, a/k/a Mark Eric Green, a/k/a Mark Harris, a/k/a Paul Eustance, a/k/a Derrick Anderson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-95-104) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6257 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PETER PAUL, a/k/a Paul Alexander, a/k/a Slug- gie, a/k/a Peter P. Alexander, a/k/a Mark Eric Green, a/k/a Mark Harris, a/k/a Paul Eustance, a/k/a Derrick Anderson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-95-104) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter Paul, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Peter Paul seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence imposed following a plea of guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994), and use of a firearm during drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Paul’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. A criminal defendant has ten days after the entry of judg- ment to note an appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1). Judgment was entered on March 25, 1996, and Paul’s notice of appeal was filed on February 19, 1999. Because Paul failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Paul’s motion for appoint- ment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer