Case ID: f-appx_31/html/0102-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian RICHARDS, a/k/a Jamican Tony, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-7941.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 14, 2002.
    Decided March 11, 2002.
    Adrian Richards, Appellant Pro Se. William Edward Fitzpatrick, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Adrian Richards seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Richards’ notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties to civil actions are accorded sixty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 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, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on February 1, 2000. Richards’ notice of appeal was filed on November 5, 2001. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Because Richards 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 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED. 
      
       The district court’s order, which simply stated that Richards’ reconsideration motion was denied, satisfied the "separate document" requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. See Quinn v. Haynes, 234 F.3d 837, 843 (4th Cir.2000) (stating that the time to appeal does not begin to run when a district court does not enter its judgment on a separate document); Hughes v. Halifax County Sch. Bd., 823 F.2d 832, 835 (4th Cir.1987) (stating that a succinct order accompanied by no explanation is a "separate document” for Rule 58 purposes).