Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Jonathan T. HOUGH, Defendant- Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-06
Citations: 142 F. App'x 759
Docket Number: No. 05-6194
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Jonathan T. HOUGH, Defendant— Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 142
Pages: 759–759

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Jonathan T. HOUGH, Defendant— Appellant.
No. 05-6194.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 17, 2005.
Decided: Sept. 6, 2005.
Jonathan T. Hough, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan T. Hough seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. We conclude that Hough's notice of appeal is untimely. A notice of appeal in a criminal case must be filed within ten days of the entry of judgment being appealed. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1). The district court, upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause, may extend the time period for filing a notice of appeal an additional thirty days. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4). The appeal periods established by Rule 4 are mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); United States v. Ray-nor, 939 F.2d 191, 197 (4th Cir.1991). The district court entered its judgment on October 31, 2001, and Hough filed his notice of appeal on January 25, 2005, over three years after his conviction. As Hough's appeal is untimely, we dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Hough's motion to hold the appeal in abeyance pending the district court's ruling on his motion for leave to file an appeal out of time, as the district court does not have jurisdiction to grant an extension beyond the period set forth in Rule 4(b).
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