Case ID: f-appx_52/html/0215-01.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. Jose Pena ROSARIO, a/k/a John Doe, a/k/a July, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-7022.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 20, 2002.
    Decided Dec. 12, 2002.
    Jose Pena Rosario, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Jose Pena Rosario seeks to appeal the district court order denying relief on his motion to compel the Government to file a Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 motion. The Government has moved to dismiss, alleging Rosario did not timely file his notice of appeal. We grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

In criminal cases, the defendant is accorded ten days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” United States v. Raynor, 939 F.2d 191, 197 (4th Cir.1991).

The district court’s order denying Rosario’s motion was entered on its docket on May 20, 2002. Rosario filed a “Motion to Prosecute the Appeal” that he averred he mailed no earlier than June 11, 2002. The Government averred the motion was untimely filed, and the district court denied Rosario’s “Motion to Prosecute the Appeal” as time-barred. Because Rosario failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal. 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.