United States of America v. Jamie Paul Tabit, a/k/a Gonzo

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4611
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMIE PAUL TABIT, a/k/a Gonzo,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-03-60)
Submitted: December 9, 2004 Decided: December 14, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamie Paul Tabit, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Jamie Paul Tabit seeks to appeal his conviction and
sentence. In criminal cases, 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 grant
an extension of time to file of up to thirty days upon a showing of
excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United
States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). When the
notice of appeal is filed more than thirty days after expiration of
the appeal period, neither the district court nor this Court may
grant an extension. United States v. Schuchardt, 685 F.2d 901, 902
(4th Cir. 1982). The appeal periods established by Rule 4 are
mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr.,
434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978).
The district court entered its judgment on November 19,
2003, and its amended judgment on December 1, 2003. Tabit filed
his notice of appeal on June 23, 2004. * Because the notice of
appeal was filed beyond the excusable neglect period, we dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --