United States v. Hamilton

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 28, 2000·No. 00-6084·Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6084

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILL HAMILTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-96-679)

Submitted: May 31, 2000 Decided: June 28, 2000

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Will Hamilton, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Following his guilty plea, Will Hamilton was convicted of

possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of

21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999). On March 25, 1998, the

district court sentenced him to 188 months in prison. This court

affirmed the district court’s judgment. See United States v.

Hamilton, 178 F.3d 1287, 1999 WL 253817 (4th Cir. Apr. 29, 1999)

(unpublished). Hamilton now attempts to file a second direct

criminal appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742 (West 1985 and Supp.

2000). We lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal,

however, 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 estab-

lished by Rule 4 are mandatory and jurisdictional. See Browder v.

Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978). Hamilton

filed his notice of appeal in January 2000, nearly two years out-

side the appeal period. Hamilton’s untimely appeal deprives this

court of jurisdiction to consider its merits. We therefore dismiss

the appeal. 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Hamilton, (4th Cir. 2000).

United States v. Hamilton (United States v. Hamilton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill.
434 U.S. 257 (Supreme Court, 1978)