United States v. Hamlin , 42 F. App'x 610 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6440
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DARRYL HAMLIN, a/k/a Daryl Hamlin,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 02-6813
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DARRYL HAMLIN, a/k/a Daryl Hamlin,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-00-136-A)
Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 1, 2002
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
No. 02-6440 dismissed and No. 02-6813 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Darryl Hamlin, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, William Edward
Fitzpatrick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
In No. 02-6440, Darryl Hamlin seeks to appeal from the
district court’s denial of his September 2001, motion for leave to
file a late appeal from his criminal judgment entered in September
2000. Because Hamlin’s notice of appeal is untimely, we dismiss
this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by
Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and
jurisdictional.” United States v. Raynor, 939 F.2d 191, 197 (4th
Cir. 1991). Defendants in criminal proceedings have ten days
within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from
judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). The only
exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends
the time to appeal “[u]pon a showing of excusable neglect.” Id.The district court’s order denying Hamlin’s motion to file a
late appeal was entered on October 25, 2001; his notice of appeal
was filed on March 4, 2002. Hamlin’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, dismiss Appeal No. 02-6440 for lack of jurisdiction.
In No. 02-6813, Hamlin appeals from the district court’s order
denying his motions for transcripts and for discovery. We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
3
district court. See United States v. Hamlin, No. CR-00-136-A (E.D.
Va. Apr. 26, 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.
No. 02-6440 - DISMISSED
No. 02-6813 - AFFIRMED
4