UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4248
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WALTER GERARD NORMAN, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-01-148)
Submitted: February 28, 2003 Decided: March 28, 2003
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas H. Eagen, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills
Wagoner, United States Attorney, Steven H. Levin, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Walter Gerard Norman, Jr., seeks to appeal his conviction and
sentence following his guilty plea to one count of distributing
cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2000). In criminal
cases, the defendant must file his notice of appeal within ten days
of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or
without a motion, the district court may grant an extension of time
to file of up to thirty days upon a showing of excusable neglect or
good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759
F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The appeal periods of Rule 4 are
mandatory and jurisdictional. United States v. Raynor, 939 F.2d
191, 197 (4th Cir. 1991).
The district court entered its final criminal judgment on
October 30, 2001. Norman conveyed his pro se notice of appeal to
prison authorities for mailing no earlier than March 5, 2002, the
date he certified that he served the United States with the
document. Even accepting this date as the date Norman filed his
notice of appeal, however, it was clearly filed well after both the
ten-day period and the thirty-day excusable neglect period expired.
Because Norman failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we dismiss
the appeal. 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