Filed: Apr. 25, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7826 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DENNIS EVERETTE ROSS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-02-27; CA-05-664-1) Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 25, 2006 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis Everette Ros
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7826 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DENNIS EVERETTE ROSS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-02-27; CA-05-664-1) Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 25, 2006 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis Everette Ross..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7826
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DENNIS EVERETTE ROSS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-02-27; CA-05-664-1)
Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 25, 2006
Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis Everette Ross, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Everette Ross seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion for correction of sentence pursuant to
Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. In a criminal case, the defendant must file
his notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of the
district court’s final order. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). 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 district court’s final order in this case was entered
on October 14, 2005. Even giving Ross the benefit of Fed. R. App.
P. 4(c), his notice of appeal is deemed filed on November 7, 2005
— outside the ten-day appeal period. Because Ross failed to file
a timely notice of appeal and did not obtain an extension of time
to appeal, we 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
- 2 -