Case ID: f-appx_90/html/0058-01.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. James Curtis JOHNSON, a/k/a Curt, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-7760.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2004.
    Decided March 22, 2004.
    James Curtis Johnson, Appellant pro se. Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

James Curtis Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying reconsideration of that order. We dismiss the 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. Director, 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 denying reconsideration was entered on the docket on August 15, 2003. The record reflects that the notice of appeal was delivered to prison officials for mailing on October 25, 2003. Because Johnson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. Johnson’s “Motion to Supplement” is denied as moot. 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