United States v. Miller ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-4310
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    WILLIE JAMES MILLER, a/k/a Willie Gene Miller,
    Defendant - Appellant,
    versus
    WILLIE L. HUGH; SHAWN D. CHAPMAN; ORIGEN
    FINANCIAL INC; WILLIAMS FINANCIAL SERVICES
    INCORPORATED,
    Parties in Interest.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.   Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
    (CR-02-471-TLW)
    Submitted: December 15, 2005              Decided: December 20, 2005
    Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jerry M. Screen, SCREEN & LEVY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellant.   Arthur Bradley Parham, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    By notice of appeal dated February 12, 2005, Willie James
    Miller seeks to appeal a sentence imposed upon him by a criminal
    judgment    entered    on    July   28,    2003.     In    criminal   cases,    the
    defendant must file his notice of appeal within ten days of the
    entry of judgment.      Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A).          That appeal period
    may be extended for a maximum of thirty days upon a showing of good
    cause or excusable neglect.           Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4).           The time
    periods established by Rule 4 are “mandatory and jurisdictional.”
    Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 
    434 U.S. 257
    , 264 (1978).
    Because Miller failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
    obtain an extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal for
    lack of jurisdiction.        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
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-4310

Filed Date: 12/20/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021