Case ID: f-appx_1/html/0250-01.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. Howard L. SMITH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-7110.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2001.
    Decided Jan. 17, 2001.
    Robert Lee Jenkins, Jr., Bynum & Jenkins, Alexandria, VA, for appellant. Daniel Locke Bell, II, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for ap-pellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Howard L. Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Smith’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Criminal defendants are 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), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(4). This appeal period is “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 (1960)).

The district court entered its order on the docket on March 23, 2000. Counsel filed Smith’s notice of appeal on April 12, 2000. Because Smith failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, 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.