United States v. Saunders , 34 F. App'x 101 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6283
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EDWARD HAROLD SAUNDERS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-94-17)
Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 8, 2002
Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his motion to dismiss the
indictment under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2), and his motion for
reconsideration. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
In criminal cases, the defendant is accorded ten days after
entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an
appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A), unless the district court
extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). This
appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” United States v.
Raynor, 939 F.2d 191, 196 (4th Cir. 1991).
The district court’s order denying Rule 12(b)(2) relief was
filed on July 9, 2001, and entered on the docket on July 17, 2001.
Saunders filed his notice of appeal on February 1, 2002. Because
Saunders failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an
extension of the appeal period, we lack jurisdiction to review the
district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the
indictment. We therefore dismiss this portion of the appeal.
With regard to the denial of the motion for reconsideration,
we have reviewed the record, the district court’s order, and
Saunders’ informal brief filed in this court. Because Saunders
failed to challenge on appeal the district court’s disposition of
the motion for reconsideration, he has waived appellate review of
that order. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). We therefore affirm this portion of
2
the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States
v. Saunders, No. CR-94-17 (W.D.N.C. filed Jan. 25, 2002 & entered
Jan. 30, 2002). 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
3