United States v. Leonard Oliver, 878 F.3d 120

Leonard Oliver pleaded guilty to attempting to possess with intent to distribute ≥500g of cocaine and was sentenced on Sept. 30, 2011 to a 10-year mandatory minimum based on a prior final felony drug conviction.
Oliver filed a timely §2255 motion challenging counsel; the district court denied relief in March 2015.
On June 18, 2015 (3 years, 8 months after the judgment), Oliver filed a pro se notice of direct appeal; appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and the Government initially did not object to timeliness.
Rule 4(b)(1)(A) requires a criminal notice of appeal within 14 days of the judgment; Oliver’s notice was plainly tardy and beyond the 30-day window for excusable neglect under Rule 4(b)(4).
The Fourth Circuit considered (1) whether it has inherent authority to dismiss untimely criminal appeals sua sponte under Rule 4(b)(1)(A), and (2) whether to exercise that authority in Oliver’s case, given the Government had forfeited a timeliness objection.
The court concluded it has inherent authority to raise Rule 4(b) sua sponte but should do so only in extraordinary circumstances; because Oliver filed his appeal after completing collateral review, the court dismissed the appeal as untimely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court may, on its own, dismiss an untimely criminal appeal under Rule 4(b)(1)(A)	Oliver implicitly argues the court should proceed to merits because the Government forfeited timeliness objection	Government had forfeited timely objection by failing to raise it early, but the court may nonetheless consider institutional interests	The court may exercise inherent authority to invoke Rule 4(b)(1)(A) sua sponte to protect finality and judicial efficiency
Whether the court should exercise sua sponte authority in this case	Oliver urges merits review after §2255 denial and the Government’s failure to object	Government’s delay in objecting forfeits the defense; ordinarily court should respect adversarial presentation unless institutional interests outweigh it	The court exercised sua sponte authority and dismissed because the appeal was filed after collateral review, undermining finality and judicial efficiency

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (recognizing courts’ inherent power to protect proceedings and judgments)
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (inherent authority to manage docket, including dismissals for failure to prosecute)
Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (explaining Rule 4(b) predecessor and dismissal on timely government invocation)
Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (emphasizing party presentation and courts as neutral arbiters)
Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648 (warning against sua sponte statute-of-limitations dismissal absent strong institutional interests)
United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220 (describing inherent powers to manage affairs)
United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740 (Tenth Circuit allowing sua sponte Rule 4(b) dismissal when inordinate delay implicates judicial resources)
United States v. Gaytan-Garza, 652 F.3d 680 (Sixth Circuit adopting Mitchell’s approach)
Nasim v. Warden, Maryland House of Correction, 64 F.3d 951 (allowing sua sponte limitations defense for §1915(d) filings)
Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701 (permitting sua sponte statute-of-limitations consideration in habeas context)