Case ID: f-appx_26/html/0358-01.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. Jesus SANTIAGO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-7872.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 31, 2002.
    Decided Feb. 11, 2002.
    Jesus Santiago, Appellant Pro Se. Katharine Jacobs Armentrout, Assistant United States Attorney, James McCormick Webster, III, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Jesus Santiago was convicted in 1998 after pleading guilty to count one of the. indictment: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Santiago filed a motion in the district court to dismiss count one of the indictment for lack of jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion on August 3, 2001. Santiago did not file a notice of appeal until October 19, 2001. He did, however, indicate to the district court by a motion to demand resolution of his prior motion, that he had not received notice of the judgment, which he filed on October 2, 2001.

Criminal defendants have ten days from the entry of a final order to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b). Upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause, a court may extend the appeal period for up to thirty days beyond the expiration of the ten day appeal period. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4). The appeal periods established by Rule 4(b) for criminal appeals are mandatory and jurisdictional. United States v. Raynor, 939 F.2d 191, 197 (4th Cir.1991). Because Santiago did not file anything with the court to indicate he wished to file a notice of appeal until after the excusable neglect period expired, this court is without jurisdiction to review the appeal.

Accordingly, we 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.