UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6512
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT LEON BUCKNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CR-97-413-JFM)
Submitted: May 10, 2001 Decided: May 23, 2001
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Robert Leon Buckner, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew George Warrens
Norman, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Leon Buckner seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders (1) finding that he failed to establish excusable neglect
under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4), warranting an extension of the
appeal period, and (2) denying relief on his motion filed under
Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinion finding no excusable neglect and conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion. United States v.
Breit, 754 F.2d 526, 529 (4th Cir. 1985) (stating standard of
review). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. United States v. Buckner, No. CR-97-413-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 20,
2001).
Buckner also challenges the denial of his Rule 35 motion. We
dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Fed.
R. App. P. 4(b)(1); Breit, 754 F.2d at 528 (applying ten-day appeal
period to Rule 35 motion).
The district court’s order denying Rule 35 relief was entered
on the docket on February 20, 2001; the ten-day appeal period
expired on March 2, 2001. Under Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988), Buckner filed his notice of appeal on March 9, 2001.
Because Buckner failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to ob-
tain an extension based upon excusable neglect, we dismiss this
portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
2
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
3