UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7470
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BENJAMIN R. WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (CR-00-8-2-HCM)
Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: May 10, 2006
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin R. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin R. Williams appeals from the district court’s
order denying his motion to modify the terms of his supervised
release. 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). The district court entered its judgment on July 14, 2005,
and Williams filed his notice of appeal on September 9, 2005,
outside the thirty-day excusable neglect period. As Williams’
appeal is untimely,1 we dismiss his appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts
1
Williams cannot claim reliance on the district court’s order
mistakenly stating Williams had sixty days to appeal, because
litigants have a duty to familiarize themselves with the Federal
Rules and cannot claim to rely on rulings by the district court
that are plainly in violation of those rules. Panhorst v. United
States, 241 F.3d 367, 373 (4th Cir. 2001).
2
Further, even if we possessed jurisdiction to review the
merits of Williams’ appeal, we would have no difficulty concluding
the district court acted well within its legal authority and
discretion in denying Williams’ motion to modify the terms of his
supervised release.
- 2 -
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -