United States v. Cross , 158 F. App'x 515 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-4969
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS, a/k/a Red,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
    Judge. (CR-03-10)
    Submitted:   December 22, 2005            Decided: December 29, 2005
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William Terrence Cross, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Ryland Winston,
    Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellant.       Michael James Elston,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Laura P.
    Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,
    Michele Yvette Francis Sarko, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
    Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    By judgment entered on August 1, 2003, William T. Cross
    was    convicted    by       a    jury    of    witness   tampering,    
    18 U.S.C. § 1512
    (b)(1) (2000), and retaliating against a witness, 
    18 U.S.C. § 1513
    (b)(2)     (2000).           On   appeal,     this   Court    affirmed    his
    convictions,       but   vacated          his     sentence   and     remanded      for
    resentencing.      United States v. Cross, 
    371 F.3d 176
     (2004).                   This
    Court recently affirmed the sentence imposed at resentencing.
    United States v. Cross, No. 04-5030, 
    2005 WL 3452041
     (4th Cir. Dec.
    16, 2005) (unpublished).
    Seeking       a       second    direct     criminal     appeal    of   his
    convictions, Cross filed a notice of appeal at the earliest on
    September 13, 2005, of the district court’s pre-trial April 15,
    2003, order denying his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
    We lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal because
    it is untimely.      Criminal defendants have ten days from the entry
    of the judgment or order at issue to file a notice of appeal.                      See
    Fed. R. App. P. 4(b).            The appeal periods established by Rule 4 are
    mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 
    434 U.S. 257
    , 264 (1978).             Because Cross filed his notice of appeal
    over two years after his criminal judgment was entered, we lack
    jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal.
    Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.                   We dispense with
    oral   argument     because        the    facts     and   legal    contentions    are
    - 2 -
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-4969

Citation Numbers: 158 F. App'x 515

Judges: Widener, Niemeyer, King

Filed Date: 12/29/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024