Case ID: f-appx_140/html/0469-01.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

Winfred F. NICHOLSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 04-1738, 05-1362.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 10, 2005.
    Decided July 29, 2005.
    Winfred F. Nicholson, Appellant Pro Se. David I. Pincus, Samuel Ashby Lambert, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    No. 04-1738 dismissed; No. 05-1362 affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

In appeal No. 04-1738, Winfred F. Nicholson seeks to appeal from the district court’s order dismissing his complaint challenging the government’s filing of tax liens. Because the notice of appeal was received in the district court after the expiration of the appeal period, but within the thirty-day period within which the district court may grant an extension of the appeal period, we remanded the case to the district court for a determination of whether there was excusable neglect or good cause that would warrant an extension of the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5).

On remand, the district court found no good cause and no excusable neglect. The district court therefore did not grant an extension of time to note the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 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 March 31, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on June 3, 2004. Because Nicholson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant the government’s motion to dismiss appeal No. 04-1738 as untimely.

In appeal No. 05-1362, Nicholson appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the determination that he failed to show excusable neglect or good cause and thereby denying his motion for an extension of time to note his appeal. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Nicholson v. United States, No. CA-02-8214-1 (D.Md. Feb. 1, 2005). 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

AFFIRMED