United States of America v. Steve Allen Steelman

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7180
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
STEVE ALLEN STEELMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-94-11-V)
Submitted: February 2, 2004 Decided: July 27, 2004
Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steve Allen Steelman, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Marie Hoefling,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Steve Allen Steelman seeks to appeal an amended criminal
judgment. In a criminal case, the defendant must file his notice
of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App.
P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, the district court may
extend the appeal period for an additional thirty days upon a
showing of good cause or excusable neglect. Fed. R. App. P.
4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985).
The appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v.
Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United
States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).
The amended judgment in this case was entered on June 17,
2003. Steelman’s notice of appeal is deemed filed on July 17,
2003—-outside the initial ten-day appeal period. Steelman filed a
timely Rule 4(b)(4) motion, which the district court denied based
on a determination that Steelman failed to demonstrate good cause
or excusable neglect for his late notice of appeal. We conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motion.
Because Steelman failed to file a timely notice of appeal
and failed to receive leave to file a belated appeal, we dismiss
the appeal. We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --