Case ID: f-appx_159/html/0508-01.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. Jonathan Wayne HADRICK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-7219.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2005.
    Decided Dec. 21, 2005.
    Jonathan Wayne Hadrick, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 mthin 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 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