Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marion Shawn ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-12-27
Citations: 22 F. App'x 309
Docket Number: No. 01-4518
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marion Shawn ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 309–310

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marion Shawn ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-4518.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 20, 2001.
Decided Dec. 27, 2001.
Marion Shawn Anderson, Pro Se. Philip S. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Marion Shawn Anderson seeks to appeal a judgment in a criminal case. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Anderson's notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded ten days after entry of the district court's judgment to note an appeal, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)®, 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)).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on September 29, 2000. Anderson's notice of appeal was filed on June 18, 2001. Because Anderson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening 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 filing date. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).