UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4649
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTONIO SHERROD JONES, a/k/a Birdie,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 05-4751
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTONIO SHERROD JONES, a/k/a Birdie,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (2:03-cr-00172)
Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 5, 2006
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
No. 05-4649 dismissed, No. 05-4751, affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Robert C. Neeley, Jr., ROBINSON, NEELEY & ANDERSON, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellant. Laura P. Tayman, Assistant United States
Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Antonio S. Jones appeals from his criminal judgment and
the district court order denying his motion for an extension of
time to file a notice of appeal. Jones’ counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The
Government has not filed a reply brief. Jones has filed a pro se
supplemental brief. We dismiss the appeal from the criminal
judgment as untimely and affirm the order denying the motion for an
extension of time.
Jones’ judgment was entered on October 6, 2004. His
notice of appeal was due on October 21, 2004. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(b). Thus, the time period for Jones to file a notice of appeal
expired on October 21, 2004. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a). Jones
filed a pro se notice of appeal on June 13, 2005. At the same
time, he filed a motion for an extension of time to file a notice
of appeal, arguing that his attorney did not file an appeal as he
requested. The district court may grant an extension of time up to
thirty days after the expiration of the appeal period, if there is
a finding of good cause or excusable neglect. Fed. R. App. P.
4(b)(4). The district court only has authority, however, “to
extend the time to file a notice of appeal for a period not to
exceed thirty days from the expiration of the time otherwise
prescribed by this Rule 4(b).” Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). The time
periods presented in Rule 4(b) are mandatory and jurisdictional.
- 3 -
United States v. Raynor, 939 F.2d 191, 196 (4th Cir. 1991). As the
appeal was filed several months outside of the excusable neglect
period provided in Rule 4(b)(4), the appeal is untimely and must be
dismissed. For the same reason, the appeal from the district
court’s order denying the motion for an extension of time should be
affirmed.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal from the criminal
judgment and affirm the district court’s order denying Jones’
motion for an extension of time to file the appeal. We deny Jones’
motion to relieve counsel. In accordance with Anders, we have
reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious
issues for appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Jones,
in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Jones 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 Jones. 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.
No. 05-4649: DISMISSED
No. 05-4751: AFFIRMED
- 4 -