Case ID: f-appx_6/html/0126-01.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. Paul PARKER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-6063.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2001.
    Decided March 16, 2001.
    Paul Parker, pro se. Patricia S. Rim, Melvin LaGrone Otey, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for appellee.
    Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Paul Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000) motion. We dismiss 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 district 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 of Illinois, 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 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 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.