United States of America v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 1978 quoting United States v.…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7443
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LARRY ELLIS GHOLSON, a/k/a Sylvester Bradley,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CR-97-72)
Submitted: March 13, 2001 Decided: April 16, 2001
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Ellis Gholson, Appellant Pro Se. Damon A. King, OFFICE OF
THE POST JUDGE ADVOCATE, Fort Monroe, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

* If construed as motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2000), Gholson’s motion would be successive and would require
authorization pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West Supp. 2000).
2
PER CURIAM:
Larry Ellis Gholson appeals the district court’s orders de-
nying his motion to clarify and alter the restitution order in his
criminal case and denying reconsideration. * We find the appeal un-
timely and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for
filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These
periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director,
Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United
States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). In a criminal case,
a defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within ten days of the
entry of the order appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). The
only exception is when the district court extends the appeal period
pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4).
The district court entered its order on September 7, 2000;
Gholson’s notice of appeal was signed and dated on September 28,
2000, which is beyond the ten-day appeal period. Gholson’s failure
to note a timely appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal
period leaved this court without jurisdiction to consider the
merits of Gholson’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 of 3 --