OPINION

Jesse L. Short seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. In criminal eases, 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 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)

The district court entered its judgment on October 7, 2002; the ten-day appeal period expired on October 22, 2002. Short filed his notice of appeal after the ten-day period expired but within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. Because Short’s notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, we remanded the case to the district court to determine whether Short could demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period. On remand, the district court found that Short had not established excusable neglect.

In his affidavit, Short stated that though he recalled discussing appeal with his lawyer, he did not remember actually asking him to file an appeal for him because he no longer wanted the attorney to represent him. (R. Vol. 6 at 188). Short basically asserted that his conflict with his lawyer and his unfamiliarity with court rules caused, at least in part, the untimely filing.

*323 In considering this information, the district court noted that it clearly advised Short at his sentencing hearing that he had the right to appeal his sentence in certain circumstances and told him he should consult his attorney on the matter. Further, the court explained to Short that he had ten days after judgment was entered in his case to file a Notice of Appeal, and even told him that the Clerk would prepare and file it for him if he so requested. Short acknowledged his understanding of this process, the court observed. These observations adequately support the court’s finding of no excusable neglect, and thus there was no abuse of discretion.

Because the district court declined to extend the appeal period based on excusable neglect, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.