UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4603
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES TYRONE BELLAMY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (CR-01-293)
Submitted: February 25, 2004 Decided: March 12, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Tyrone Bellamy seeks to appeal his conviction and
sentence following his guilty plea to conspiring to possess with
the intent to distribute crack and to being a felon in possession
of a firearm. See 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000); 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g),
924(a) (2000). The district court entered judgment of conviction
against Bellamy on February 20, 2002. Bellamy filed a pro se
notice of appeal on July 15, 2003. Counsel has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
conceding the appeal is untimely. Bellamy has filed a supplemental
brief, alleging his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a
timely appeal.
Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a
defendant’s notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed
within ten days after the entry of the judgment. Fed. R. App. P.
4(b)(1). The district court may, upon a finding of excusable
neglect or good cause, extend a defendant’s time period for filing
a notice of appeal an additional thirty days beyond the expiration
of the ten-day period. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). The appeal
periods established by Rule 4 are mandatory and jurisdictional.
Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264
(1978); Panhorst v. United States, 241 F.3d 369-70 (4th Cir. 2001).
We are precluded from enlarging the time for filing a notice of
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(b).
- 2 -
Bellamy’s notice of appeal was filed beyond both the ten-
day period and the additional thirty-day period. Because Bellamy’s
appeal is clearly untimely, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss the
appeal. Bellamy’s contention that his counsel was ineffective for
failing to file a timely appeal is appropriately raised in a motion
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
States for further review. If the client requests that a petition
be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a
copy thereof was served on the client.
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 -