Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. O'Neal McGILL, a/k/a James Owens, a/k/a Hard Times, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-01-31
Citations: 2 F. App'x 396
Docket Number: No. 00-7243
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. O’Neal McGILL, a/k/a James Owens, a/k/a Hard Times, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 2
Pages: 396–397

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. O’Neal McGILL, a/k/a James Owens, a/k/a Hard Times, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-7243.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 30, 2000.
Decided Jan. 31, 2001.
O’Neal McGill, pro se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, NC, for appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
O'Neal McGill appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to correct his name on his criminal judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because McGill's notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Defendants in criminal cases have ten days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed.RApp.P. 4(b)(1). This time period is "mandatory and jurisdictional." United States v. Raynor, 939 F.2d 191, 197 (4th Cir.1991). The only exception to the appeal period is when the district court grants an extension "[ujpon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause." Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(4).
The district court's order was entered on August 11, 2000. McGill filed his notice of appeal on August 24, 2000. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). McGill's failure to note a timely appeal or -obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of his appeal. Accordingly, 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.