UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7396
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALEXANDER FAUST, a/k/a Stanka,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CR-94-773)
Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 6, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alexander Faust, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United
States Attorney, Kelly Elizabeth Shackelford, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Faust pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute co-
caine and cocaine base and was sentenced on May 8, 1995. He filed
a notice of appeal on May 7, 2001, seeking review of his sentence
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (1994). However, this statute governs
direct criminal appeals and is unavailable to Faust 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 mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director,
Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978). Because Faust filed his
notice of appeal approximately six years outside the appeal period,
we lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal.
To the extent that Faust seeks to appeal the district court’s
November 23, 1999, denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2001) motion, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Faust’s notice of ap-
peal 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, 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 appeal, and affirmed on
2
the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Faust,
No. 99-7673, 2000 WL 347051 (4th Cir. Mar. 15, 2000) (unpublished).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