Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Leon BUCKNER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-23
Citations: 11 F. App'x 224
Docket Number: No. 01-6512
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Leon BUCKNER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 11
Pages: 224–225

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Leon BUCKNER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-6512.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 10, 2001.
Decided May 23, 2001.
Robert Leon Buckner, pro se. Andrew George Warrens Norman, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Robert Leon Buckner seeks to appeal the district court's oi'ders (1) finding that he failed to establish excusable neglect under Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(4), warranting an extension of the appeal period, and (2) denying relief on his motion filed under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion finding no excusable neglect and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. United States v. Breit, 754 F.2d 526, 529 (4th Cir.1985) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Buckner, No. CR 97-413-JFM (D.Md. Mar. 20, 2001).
Buckner also challenges the denial of his Rule 35 motion. We dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Fed. R.App.P. 4(b)(1); Breit, 754 F.2d at 528 (applying ten-day appeal period to Rule 35 motion).
The district court's order denying Rule 35 relief was entered on the docket on February 20, 2001; the ten-day appeal period expired on March 2, 2001. Under Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), Buckner filed his notice of appeal on March 9, 2001. Because Buckner failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension based upon excusable neglect, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.