Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-95-05180/USCOURTS-ca10-95-05180-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Samuel Langham
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UnitedStatesCo!"'t'?fAppcn::t Tenth Cucwt 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

CHARLES SAMUEL LANGHAM, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 95-5180 

Appeal from the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of Oklahoma 

(D.C. No. 90-CR-103-C) 

James L. Swartz, Assistant United States Attorney, Tulsa, Oklahoma 

for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Charles Langham, pro se. 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and KELLY. 

FEB 2 8 1996 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerlt 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined that oral 

argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

Appellate Case: 95-5180 Document: 01019276431 Date Filed: 02/28/1996 Page: 1 
34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

The defendant was convicted of various drug offenses following a guilty plea in July 

1991. The conviction and sentence were afftrmed on direct appeal in April 1993. On March 

23, 1995, the defendant ftled a motion for the transcripts of his sentencing hearing at 

government expense, contending that he needed the transcripts to prepare a post-conviction 

motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. That motion was denied on July 31 and the notice of 

appeal was ftled on August 21. The defendant has not ftled any collateral proceedings 

challenging this conviction. 

We lack jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 

4(b); United States v. Lanier, 604 F.2d 1157, 1159-60 (8th Cir. 1979). 

A timely notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director. 

Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978). 

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 95-5180 Document: 01019276431 Date Filed: 02/28/1996 Page: 2