United States v. Santiago , 26 F. App'x 358 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7872
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JESUS SANTIAGO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge; Herbert
N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-97-301)
Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 11, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jesus Santiago, Appellant Pro Se. Katharine Jacobs Armentrout,
Assistant United States Attorney, James McCormick Webster, III,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jesus Santiago was convicted in 1998 after pleading guilty to
count one of the indictment: conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute crack cocaine. Santiago filed a motion in the district
court to dismiss count one of the indictment for lack of juris-
diction. The district court denied the motion on August 3, 2001.
Santiago did not file a notice of appeal until October 19, 2001.
He did, however, indicate to the district court by a motion to
demand resolution of his prior motion, that he had not received
notice of the judgment, which he filed on October 2, 2001.
Criminal defendants have ten days from the entry of a final
order to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). Upon a
finding of excusable neglect or good cause, a court may extend the
appeal period for up to thirty days beyond the expiration of the
ten day appeal period. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). The appeal
periods established by Rule 4(b) for criminal appeals are mandatory
and jurisdictional. United States v. Raynor, 939 F.2d 191, 197
(4th Cir. 1991). Because Santiago did not file anything with the
court to indicate he wished to file a notice of appeal until after
the excusable neglect period expired, this court is without juris-
diction to review the appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3