Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon R. HOPE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-12
Citations: 316 F. App'x 263
Docket Number: No. 08-5169
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ramon R. HOPE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 316
Pages: 263–263

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ramon R. HOPE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-5169.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 18, 2009.
Decided: March 12, 2009.
Thomas Edward Vanderbloemen, Galli-van, White & Boyd, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. James Chris Le-ventis, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ramon R. Hope seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir.1985).
The district court entered judgment on October 19, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on November 24, 2008. Because Hope failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension 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.
To the extent Hope's notice of appeal relates to the district court's November 13, 2008 order denying his request for an extension of time in which to file a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion, the order Hope seeks to appeal is a non-appealable interlocutory order, and this court is without jurisdiction to consider it.