UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7601
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JIMMY EARL CONARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-91-52, CA-96-305-1-MU)
Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 26, 2001
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmy Earl Conard, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Earl Conard pled guilty to bank robbery in 1992 and re-
ceived a 198-month sentence. He filed a notice of appeal on Novem-
ber 6, 2000, seeking review of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3742 (1994). However, this statute governs direct criminal ap-
peals and is unavailable to Conard, who failed to file a timely
direct appeal. Criminal defendants have ten days from the entry of
the judgment or order at issue to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R.
App. P. 4(b). The appeal periods established by Rule 4 are manda-
tory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434
U.S. 257, 264 (1978). Because Conard filed his notice of appeal on
November 6, 2000, approximately eight years outside the appeal
period, we lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal.
To the extent that Conard seeks to appeal the district court’s
denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion by order
entered July 30, 1998, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Conard’s notice
of appeal is also untimely as to that order. Parties are accorded
sixty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or
order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the
district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
Furthermore, this Court has previously reviewed that order on ap-
peal, and affirmed on the reasoning of the district court. United
2
States v. Conard, No. 98-7323, 1999 WL 5289 (4th Cir. Jan. 7, 1999)
(unpublished).
We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
3