Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifton Lee JORDAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-04-20
Citations: 11 F. App'x 122
Docket Number: No. 00-4774
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifton Lee JORDAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 11
Pages: 122–123

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifton Lee JORDAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-4774.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 30, 2001.
Decided April 20, 2001.
Parks Nolan Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, SC, for appellant. Jon Rene Josey, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, SC; Rosemary Davis Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, SC, for appellee.
Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Clifton Lee Jordan seeks to appeal the district court's judgment of conviction. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Jordan's notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded ten days after entry of the district court's judgment in a criminal case to note an appeal, see Fed. R.App.P. 4(b)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App.P. 4(b)(4). This appeal period is "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)); see also United States v. Raynor, 939 F.2d 191, 197 (4th Cir.1991).
The district court's judgment was entered on the docket on August 16, 2000. Jordan's pro se notice of appeal was filed on October 20, 2000. Because Jordan 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 given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).