Case ID: f-appx_31/html/0280-01.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. William HAMMOND, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-8066.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 21, 2002.
    Decided March 28, 2002.
    William Hammond, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

In 1995, William M. Hammond was convicted of five counts related to attempting to blow up an automated teller machine. Following his 1996 sentencing, counsel appealed the conviction. This court affirmed. United States v. Hammond, No. 96-4231 (4th Cir. Feb.11, 1997) (unpublished).

In November 2001, Hammond filed a notice of appeal from these convictions. He contends that he never received a copy of the appellate briefs or of a decision by this court; therefore, he believes that counsel did not pursue the appeal.

This court has already exercised its jurisdiction to review the final decision of the district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), in ruling on Hammond’s direct appeal. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742(a) (West 2000). Even if we had not, Hammond’s notice of appeal would be untimely. Fed. RApp. P. 4(b). The appeal periods defined in Rule 4 are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978). Therefore, 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.