Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-04350/USCOURTS-ca4-08-04350-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Feurtado
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4350

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY FEURTADO, a/k/a Anthony Greene, a/k/a Ginzo, a/k/a

Gap, a/k/a Pretty Tony, a/k/a Tony Feurtado, a/k/a Anthony

Lamar Brown, a/k/a Anthony Paul,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (3:96-cr-00325-SB-1)

Submitted: July 17, 2008 Decided: August 28, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Feurtado, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-4350 Doc: 25 Filed: 08/28/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Feurtado, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s amended criminal judgment sentencing him to 210

months of imprisonment. We conclude that Feurtado’s notice of

appeal is untimely. A notice of appeal in a criminal case must be

filed within ten days of the entry of judgment being appealed.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1). The district court, upon a finding of

excusable neglect or good cause, may extend the time period for

filing a notice of appeal an additional thirty days. Fed. R. App.

P. 4(b)(4). The appeal periods established by Rule 4 are mandatory

and jurisdictional. Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257,

264 (1978); United States v. Raynor, 939 F.2d 191, 197 (4th Cir.

1991). Feurtado’s amended criminal judgment, correcting a clerical

error under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36, was entered on December 12, 2007.

He did not file a notice of appeal until, at the earliest, March

18, 2008, outside both the ten-day appeal and thirty-day excusable

neglect periods. Thus, Feurtado’s appeal is untimely.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and

deny as moot Feurtado’s numerous pending motions.

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

Appeal: 08-4350 Doc: 25 Filed: 08/28/2008 Pg: 2 of 2