TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Earl Miles

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Earl MILES, Appellant

United States v. Miles, 510 F.2d 1362 (4th Cir. 1975)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 28, 1975
Docket
No. 74--1363
Judges
Haynsworth, Boreman, Widener
Citations
510 F.2d 13621975 U.S. App. LEXIS 16377

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Earl Miles was convicted by a jury of distribution and possession of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment with an additional five years probation. Miles’ defense at trial was that he had been entrapped. The sole issue he raises before this court is that the trial judge’s instructions concerning his entrapment defense were improper. The government has filed a motion for summary affirmance and Miles seeks summary reversal. For reasons hereinafter stated, we conclude that the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Miles was sentenced on November 5, 1973. His first indication to the court that he wished to appeal his conviction was by a letter dated December 22, 1973. Rule 4(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that in direct criminal appeals, “the notice of appeal by a defendant shall be filed in the district court within 10 days after the entry of judgment or order appealed from.” Upon a showing of excusable neglect, the district court may extend this time limit for an additional 30 days. Since Miles’ notice of appeal was filed 47 days after sentence was pronounced upon him, he failed to comply with Rule ' 4(b).

It is well settled that compliance with Rule 4(b) is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220 , 80 S.Ct. 282 , 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960); United States v. Mathews, 462 F.2d 182 (3rd Cir. 1972). This court is specifically precluded from enlarging the time otherwise permitted for filing a notice of appeal. F.R.A.P. § 26(b). Nor does this case contain unique facts which alone excuse noncompliance with the rule. E. g. Fallen v. United States, 378 U.S. 139 , 84 S.Ct. 1689 , 12 L.Ed.2d 760 (1964).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1977: 11982: 11987: 21988: 11989: 21992: 11994: 119772026peak 1987 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. John Schuchardt685 F.2d 901 (4th Cir. 1982)
  2. Cleesen v. State258 N.W.2d 330 (Iowa 1977)
  3. United States v. John Murdock815 F.2d 74 (4th Cir. 1987)
  4. United States v. Robert Eugene Bales829 F.2d 1121 (4th Cir. 1987)
  5. United States v. Fred Allen Starling849 F.2d 607 (4th Cir. 1988)
  6. United States v. Cephus McNeil865 F.2d 1260 (4th Cir. 1989)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Franklin Eugene Sanders38 F.3d 1214 (4th Cir. 1994)
  2. United States v. Shirley Lewis954 F.2d 720 (4th Cir. 1992)
  3. United States v. Jimmy Edward Blessing887 F.2d 1081 (4th Cir. 1989)
  4. United States v. Cephus McNeil865 F.2d 1260 (4th Cir. 1989)
  5. United States v. Fred Allen Starling849 F.2d 607 (4th Cir. 1988)
  6. United States v. Robert Eugene Bales829 F.2d 1121 (4th Cir. 1987)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220 (1960) 1,839
Fallen v. United States, 378 U.S. 139 (1964) 199
United States v. Mathews, 462 F.2d 182 (3d Cir. 1972) 22

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list