Case ID: f-appx_12/html/0107-01.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. Larry Ellis GHOLSON, a/k/a Sylvester Bradley, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-7443.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 13, 2001.
    Decided April 16, 2001.
    Larry Ellis Gholson, pro se. Damon A. King, Office of the Post Judge Advocate, Fort Monroe, VA, for appellee.
    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Larry Ellis Gholson appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to clarify and alter the restitution order in his criminal case and denying reconsideration. We find the appeal untimely and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed.R.App.P. 4. These periods 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) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (I960)). In a criminal case, a defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within ten days of the entry of the order appealed. Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(l)(A)(i). The only exception is when the district court extends the appeal period pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(4).

The district court entered its order on September 7, 2000; Gholson’s notice of appeal was signed and dated on September 28, 2000, which is beyond the ten-day appeal period. Gholson’s failure to note a timely appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period leaved this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Ghol-son’s appeal. We therefore 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. 
      
       If construed as motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000), Gholson’s motion would be successive and would require authorization pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West Supp.2000).