United States v. Earl Miles
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- United States v. John Schuchardt (4th Cir. 1982)
- United States v. Franklin Eugene Sanders (4th Cir. 1994)
- United States v. Shirley Lewis (4th Cir. 1992)
- United States v. Cephus McNeil A/K/A Twin (4th Cir. 1989)
- United States v. Jimmy Edward Blessing (4th Cir. 1989)
- United States v. Fred Allen Starling (4th Cir. 1988)
- United States v. John Murdock, A/K/A John Hayden (4th Cir. 1987)
- United States v. Robert Eugene Bales (4th Cir. 1987)
- Cleesen v. State (Iowa 1977)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.