United States v. Whitaker ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-5016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARTELL WHITAKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CR-98-1016)
Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 27, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Martell Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Martell Whitaker appeals his sentence for money laundering, in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1956 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Whitaker’s
notice of appeal was not timely filed.
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); United States v.
Schuchardt, 685 F.2d 901, 902 (4th Cir. 1982).
The district court’s final judgment was entered on the docket
on December 10, 1999. Whitaker’s notice of appeal was filed on
December 17, 2001.* Because Whitaker failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal. We deny Whitaker’s motions for discovery and
for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
*
This is Whitaker’s second appeal in this matter. His
sentence was originally affirmed by this Court on December 18,
2000. United States v. Whitaker, No. 99-4791, 2000 WL 1846272 (4th
Cir. Dec. 18, 2000) (unpublished).
2
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3