UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-4713

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

ALEJANDRO CARDENAS GONZALEZ, a/k/a Alejandra Gonzalez Cardenas, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-97-193)

Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 5, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel J. Clifton, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Clifton T. Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Alejandro Cardenas Gonzalez pled guilty to conspiracy to pos- sess cocaine with intent to distribute, see 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994), and was sentenced to a term of 115 months imprisonment. The dis- trict court informed him after imposing sentence that, if he wished to appeal, his appeal must be filed within ten days after the entry of judgment. The judgment order was entered on February 6, 1998.

On September 21, 1998, Gonzalez filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and indicated his desire to appeal from the judg- ment. The district court treated this document as a notice of appeal, see Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992), and granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

Rule 4(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that a notice of appeal must be filed within ten days of judgment.

The district court may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal for thirty days upon a showing of excusable neglect with or without a motion being filed. The district court may not otherwise extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. See United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schuchardt, 685 F.2d 901 (4th Cir. 1982). Gonzalez's notice of appeal was filed well beyond the forty-day appeal period. The notice of appeal was thus ineffective.

We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-

sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED