Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Coward, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    Calvin Coward appealed the district court's denial of his motion to file a belated notice of appeal in his 1990 criminal case. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on other grounds. Specifically, the appellate court found that while the district court erroneously analyzed Coward's motion under the civil appeal rule instead of the criminal rule, the district court's ultimate conclusion that it lacked authority to extend the appeal period beyond 40 days was correct under the criminal rules. The Fourth Circuit thus affirmed the denial of the motion to file a belated appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-04-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-6019

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Calvin Coward appealed the district court's denial of his motion to file a belated notice of appeal in his 1990 criminal case. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on other grounds. Specifically, the appellate court found that while the district court erroneously analyzed Coward's motion under the civil appeal rule instead of the criminal rule, the district court's ultimate conclusion that it lacked authority to extend the appeal period beyond 40 days was correct under the criminal rules. The Fourth Circuit thus affirmed the denial of the motion to file a belated appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views2 pages

    United States v. Coward, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Calvin Coward appealed the district court's denial of his motion to file a belated notice of appeal in his 1990 criminal case. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on other grounds. Specifically, the appellate court found that while the district court erroneously analyzed Coward's motion under the civil appeal rule instead of the criminal rule, the district court's ultimate conclusion that it lacked authority to extend the appeal period beyond 40 days was correct under the criminal rules. The Fourth Circuit thus affirmed the denial of the motion to file a belated appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 01-6019

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    CALVIN ANGELO COWARD,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
    Judge. (CR-90-52-2-H)

    Submitted:

    March 27, 2001

    Decided:

    April 17, 2001

    Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed on other grounds by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Calvin Angelo Coward, Appellant Pro Se.
    Jerri Ulrica Dunston,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Calvin Angelo Coward appeals from the district courts order
    denying his motion to file a belated notice of appeal in his criminal case.

    We have reviewed the district courts order and find no

    reversible error. Although the district court erroneously analyzed


    Cowards motion under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (addressing the appeal
    periods in civil cases), its ultimate conclusion that it lacked the
    authority to extend the appeal period was correct.

    See Fed. R.

    App. P. 4(b)(1), (4) (allowing the district court to extend the


    ten-day criminal appeal period by an additional thirty days).
    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts order on other grounds.
    See United States v. Coward, No. CR-90-52-4-H (E.D.N.C. Dec. 14,
    2000).

    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.

    AFFIRMED ON OTHER GROUNDS

    You might also like