United States of America v. Crishone Crystal Johnson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6970
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CRISHONE CRYSTAL JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. James H. Michael, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (CR-96-30022)
Submitted: October 18, 2005 Decided: October 21, 2005
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Crishone Crystal Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

1Insofar as Johnson is appealing the February 14, 2005, order
denying her motion to expedite review of a successive 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) motion, this court does not have jurisdiction because
the May 25, 2005, notice of appeal is untimely as to that order.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).
2To the extent Johnson may be seeking authorization to file a
second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2244 (2000), citing Booker and Blakely, we deny
authorization because the Supreme Court did not announce a new rule
of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral
review with respect to either case.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
By notice of appeal dated May 25, 2005, Crishone Crystal
Johnson seeks to appeal her sentence ordered in a March 4, 1999,
criminal judgment, citing United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. ____,
125 S. Ct. 738 (2005) and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296
(2004). In criminal cases, the defendant must file her notice of
appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P.
4(b)(1)(A). The time periods established by Rule 4 are “mandatory
and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.
257, 264 (1978). Insofar as Johnson appeals the March 4, 1999,
criminal judgment, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. 1 2
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 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

-- 2 of 2 --