Case ID: f-appx_235/html/0121-02.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

Jerome Julius BROWN, Sr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. E. King SMITH, U.S. Postal Inspector; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 06-7958.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 6, 2007.
    Decided: Aug. 6, 2007.
    
      Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Jerome Julius Brown, Sr. seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his complaint as frivolous and denying his post-judgment motion for copy work at the expense of the United States. 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. 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 orders were entered on the docket on May 30,1997 and November 22, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on November 27, 2006. Because Brown failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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.