Case ID: f-appx_127/html/0669-01.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. Jerry Louis GARNER, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-7892.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 28, 2005.
    Decided: May 4, 2005.
    Jerry Louis Garner, Appellant pro se.
    Steven Hale Levin, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Jerry Louis Garner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for specific performance. 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 was entered on the docket on September 7, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on November 17, 2004. Because Garner failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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 
      
       This date gives Gamer the benefit of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266. 108 S.Ct. 2379. 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).