United States v. Parker

01-6063 | 4th Cir. | Mar 16, 2001

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia S. Rim, Melvin LaGrone Otey, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Paul Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s order dis- missing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion. We dis- miss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Parker’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded sixty days after the entry of the dis- trict court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal when the United States is a party, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257" date_filed="1978-02-21" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill.">434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220" date_filed="1960-01-11" court="SCOTUS" case_name="United States v. Robinson">361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 15, 2000. Parker’s notice of appeal was filed on December 28, 2000. Because Parker failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2