Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Audley CASANOVA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-01-09
Citations: 54 F. App'x 174
Docket Number: No. 02-7575
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Audley CASANOVA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 54
Pages: 174–175

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Audley CASANOVA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-7575.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2002.
Decided Jan. 9, 2003.
Audley Casanova, Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Audley Casanova was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and received a 210 month sentence. Casanova seeks to appeal the criminal judgment entered against him on January 9, 1996. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
In criminal cases, the defendant must file his notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). The criminal judgment in this case was entered on January 9,1996. The earliest Casanova's notice of appeal could be deemed filed is October 2, 2002, the date written on his notice of appeal. Clearly, the notice of appeal was filed well beyond the ten-day appeal period. We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We further note that this is Casanova's second appeal of the same judgment. This Court previously affirmed the judgment on the merits. See United States v. Casanova, No. 96-4051, 1999 WL 2522 (4th Cir. Jan. 5, 1999) (unpublished). 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.