UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7219
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JONATHAN WAYNE HADRICK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR-
92-402)
Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 21, 2005
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan Wayne Hadrick, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein,
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Wayne Hadrick appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion filed under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West
2000 & Supp. 2005). In criminal cases, a defendant must file his
notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R.
App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310
(5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 proceeding is criminal in
nature and ten-day appeal period applies and collecting cases
adopting rule). 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).
These time periods are mandatory and jurisdictional. United
States v. Raynor, 939 F.2d 191, 196 (4th Cir. 1991).
The district court entered its order denying the
§ 3582(c)(2) motion on June 6, 2005. The ten-day appeal period
expired on June 20, 2005. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(2). Hadrick
filed his notice of appeal, at the earliest, on June 28,
2005—outside the ten-day appeal period but within the thirty-day
excusable neglect period. Although Hadrick filed a motion to
extend the appeal period under Rule 4(b)(4) based upon excusable
neglect, the district court denied the motion. Hadrick does not
challenge the court’s denial of that motion in his informal
- 2 -
appellate brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(b) (“The Court will limit
its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”).
Because the district court declined to extend the appeal
period, Hadrick’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Accordingly, 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
- 3 -