Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Savino BRAXTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-04
Citations: 103 F. App'x 777
Docket Number: No. 04-6047
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Savino BRAXTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 777–778

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Savino BRAXTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6047.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 29, 2004.
Decided: Aug. 4, 2004.
Savino Braxton, Appellant pro se.
Andrea L. Smith, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Savino Braxton seeks to appeal the district court's denial of his supplemental motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Movants are accorded ten days after the entry of the district court's final judgment or order to note an appeal in criminal cases. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1); United States v. Breit, 754 F.2d 526, 528 (4th Cir.1985) (applying ten-day appeal period to Rule 35 motion). The district court's order was entered on the docket on November 10, 2003. Under Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), the earliest date we may consider Braxton filed his notice of appeal is December 14, 2003. Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period provided in Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4), the district court ordered Braxton to show why his late filing should be excused. After reviewing Braxton's response, the district court concluded that Braxton failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause and we find no abuse of that discretion. Breit, 754 F.2d at 528 (providing standard of review).
Because Braxton failed to timely file an appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss 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.
DISMISSED