United States v. Jefferies , 73 F. App'x 598 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6242
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL ANTOINE JEFFERIES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-97-264, CR-97-290)
Submitted: July 23, 2003 Decided: August 25, 2003
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Antoine Jefferies, Appellant Pro Se. Robert James Conrad,
Jr., United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Antoine Jefferies seeks to appeal the district court’s
order, dated February 11, 2003,* denying his motion for
reconsideration of the district court’s December 31, 2002 order
denying his post-conviction motion to compel the Government to file
a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion.
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). Jefferies filed a motion to reconsider with the
district court on January 8, 2003. This motion tolled the running
of the time period to appeal, and thus the ten-day period began to
run from the date of the district court’s disposition of the
motion. United States v. Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 767 n.1 (4th Cir.
1993); see generally United States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1, 4 n.2
(1991).
The district court entered an order denying Jefferies’ motion
for reconsideration on February 11, 2003; the ten-day appeal period
thus expired on February 26, 2003. Jefferies states he mailed his
informal brief to this court on March 6, 2003. We construe this
informal brief as a notice of appeal from the February 11, 2003
order. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (1992). As such, Jefferies
filed his notice of appeal after the ten-day appeal period expired.
*
This is the only order that Jefferies attacks in his
informal brief filed in this Court. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
2
Jefferies has not alleged excusable neglect for his untimely notice
of appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions of the parties are adequately presented in the
materials before the Court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3