Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel WOODS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-17
Citations: 235 F. App'x 185
Docket Number: No. 06-5029
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel WOODS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 185–185

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel WOODS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-5029.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 6, 2007.
Decided: Aug. 17, 2007.
Robert E. Barrat, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, Thomas O. Muck-low, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Woods seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. In criminal cases, the defendant must file a 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 judgment on August 1, 2006. Woods's pro se notice of appeal was filed on September 26, 2006. Because Woods 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.
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).