Court Opinion

ID: 1002943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:18:43.151369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:09:41.257845
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                              No. 00-4398

WILLIAM TISDALE,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-99-303)

Submitted: October 17, 2000

Decided: November 16, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Lisa S. Costner, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Wal-
ter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Steven H. Levin, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

William Tisdale pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver
cocaine base ("crack"), in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A) (West 1999), and was sentenced to 262 months in prison to
run consecutively with the remainder of his state sentence, five years
of supervised release, and a special assessment of $100. Tisdale,
through counsel, has appealed raising one argument regarding sen-
tencing, but, in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), states that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Tisdale
was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief but has not done
so. Because Tisdale's notice of appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss
this appeal.

Although the Government does not challenge our jurisdiction to
consider this appeal, we are obligated to review our jurisdiction sua
sponte in all cases. See Maksymchuk v. Frank, 987 F.2d 1072, 1075
(4th Cir. 1993). The time periods for filing notices of appeal are gov-
erned by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and juris-
dictional." See Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S.
257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,
229 (1960)). Appeals in criminal cases must be brought within ten
days after entry of the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1). This
appeal period may be extended for a period of time not to exceed
thirty days from the expiration of the ten-day appeal period. See Fed.
R. App. P. 4(b)(4); see also United States v. Tarrant, 158 F.3d 946,
947 (6th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1168 (1999); United States
v. Schuchardt, 685 F.2d 901, 902 (4th Cir. 1982).

Tisdale's failure to note a timely appeal or to obtain an extension
of the appeal period within the applicable extension period leaves this
court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of his appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This
Court requires that Counsel inform her client, in writing, of his right
to petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Coun-

                  2
sel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

                  3
0