United States v. Smith

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7110 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HOWARD L. SMITH, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-97-341-A) Submitted: January 11, 2001 Decided: January 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Jenkins, Jr., BYNUM & JENKINS, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Daniel Locke Bell, II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Howard L. Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Smith’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Criminal defendants are accorded ten days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Cor- rections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court entered its order on the docket on March 23, 2000. Counsel filed Smith’s notice of appeal on April 12, 2000. Because Smith failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2