Case ID: f-appx_2/html/0384-02.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. Jimmy Earl CONARD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-7601.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 18, 2001.
    Decided Jan. 26, 2001.
    
      Jimmy Earl Conard, pro se.
    Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Jimmy Earl Conard pled guilty to bank robbery in 1992 and received a 198-month sentence. He filed a notice of appeal on November 6, 2000, seeking review of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (1994). However, this statute governs direct criminal appeals and is unavailable to Conard, who failed to file a timely direct appeal. Criminal defendants have ten days from the entry of the judgment or order at issue to file a notice of appeal. Fed.R.App.P. 4(b). The appeal periods established by Rule 4 are mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978). Because Conard filed his notice of appeal on November 6, 2000, approximately eight years outside the appeal period, we lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal.

To the extent that Conard seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C.A § 2255 (West Supp.2000) motion by order entered July 30, 1998, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Conard’s notice of appeal is also untimely as to that order. Parties are accorded sixty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(6). Furthermore, this Court has previously reviewed that order on appeal, and affirmed on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Conard, No. 98-7323, 1999 WL 5289 (4th Cir. Jan. 7, 1999) (unpublished).

We dismiss this 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.