UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4759
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ERIC CHRISTOPHER LOCKLEAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-03-32)
Submitted: May 25, 2005 Decided: June 15, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geoffrey Wuensch Hosford, HOSFORD & HOSFORD, Wilmington, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney,
Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Eric Christopher Locklear, a federal prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release
and imposing a 24-month term of imprisonment. We conclude that
Locklear’s notice of appeal is untimely. A notice of appeal in a
criminal case must be filed within ten days of the entry of
judgment being appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1). The district
court, upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause, may
extend the time period for filing a notice of appeal an additional
thirty days. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). The appeal periods
established by Rule 4 are mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v.
Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978); United States v.
Raynor, 939 F.2d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 1991). Locklear’s judgment
revoking supervised release and imposing a 24-month term of
imprisonment was entered on July 24, 2003. He did not file a
notice of appeal until, at the earliest, August 18, 2003, outside
the ten-day appeal period. The district court found that Locklear
did not show excusable neglect or good cause to excuse the late
filing. Thus, Locklear’s appeal is untimely. Accordingly, we
dismiss Locklear’s 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 -