Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David SWIFT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-01-27
Citations: 55 F. App'x 167
Docket Number: No. 02-7667
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David SWIFT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 167–167

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David SWIFT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-7667.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.
Decided Jan. 27, 2003.
David Swift, Appellant Pro Se. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
David Swift seeks to appeal his conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. 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 entry of judgment. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). This appeal period is "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corr., 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 (I960)). Swift's criminal judgment was entered on the docket on September 20, 1990. The notice of appeal was filed on October 20, 2002. Because Swift failed to file a timely notice of appeal, 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 purposes of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).