The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
25-6436•United States of America v. Errol Rahnell Taheim Baston
25-6436Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 1, 2025
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6436
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERROL RAHNELL TAHEIM BASTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:21-cr-00037-BO-1)
Submitted: July 29, 2025 Decided: August 1, 2025
Before KING, WYNN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Errol Rahnell Taheim Baston, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
In 2021, Errol Rahnell Taheim Baston pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Baston to a total
of 180 months’ imprisonment. Baston appealed the judgment, and we affirmed. United
States v. Baston, No. 21-4690, 2022 WL 4594062 (4th Cir. Sept. 30, 2022).
On May 15, 2025, Baston filed another notice of appeal of the district court’s final
judgment. However, in criminal cases, the defendant must file his notice of appeal within
14 days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). Because Baston’s notice
of appeal was filed more than three years after entry of the judgment, it is untimely.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See United States v. Oliver, 878 F.3d 120, 127-129
(4th Cir. 2017) (discussing situations in which this court will sua sponte dismiss untimely
criminal appeals). 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.