Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph Grayson WARD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-22
Citations: 142 F. App'x 677
Docket Number: No. 05-4465
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph Grayson WARD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 142
Pages: 677–678

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph Grayson WARD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-4465.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 14, 2005.
Decided July 22, 2005.
C. Gordon McBride, Hartsville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Miller Williams Shealy, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Grayson Ward seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir.1985).
The district court entered the criminal judgment on April 10, 2003, and entered its judgment granting Ward's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) to allow a belated notice of appeal on September 20, 2004. Ward's notice of appeal was filed on February 22, 2005. Because Ward failed to file a timely notice of appeal, 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
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).