UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-8066
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM HAMMOND,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-94-110)
Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 28, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Hammond, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
In 1995, William M. Hammond was convicted of five counts
related to attempting to blow up an automated teller machine.
Following his 1996 sentencing, counsel appealed the conviction.
This court affirmed. United States v. Hammond, No. 96-4231 (4th
Cir. Feb. 11, 1997) (unpublished).
In November 2001, Hammond filed a notice of appeal from these
convictions. He contends that he never received a copy of the
appellate briefs or of a decision by this court; therefore, he
believes that counsel did not pursue the appeal.
This court has already exercised its jurisdiction to review
the final decision of the district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994),
in ruling on Hammond’s direct appeal. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742(a) (West
2000). Even if we had not, Hammond’s notice of appeal would be
untimely. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). The appeal periods defined in
Rule 4 are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director,
Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978). Therefore, we
dismiss the 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
2