PER CURIAM:
Charles D. Izac appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for review of his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Izac, No. 3:02-cr-00058-JPB-JSK-1 (ND.W.Va. Sept. 5, 2012). To the extent that Izac intends for his motion for review of his sentence to be considered by this court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(A), we deny the motion as untimely. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately-presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Although the appeal period in criminal cases is not jurisdictional, but rather a claim-processing rule, Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209-14, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007); United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir.2009), where, as here, review is sought more than five years after the entry of the judgment, we may exercise our inherent power to dismiss it. See United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744, 750 (10th Cir.2008).