Case ID: f-appx_133/html/0899-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eric Christopher LOCKLEAR, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-4759.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 25, 2005.
    Decided: June 15, 2005.
    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.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    
      Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 86(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, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (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