Case ID: f-appx_5/html/0163-01.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

Reedie J. WARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 01-1057.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 22, 2001.
    Decided March 1, 2001.
    Reedie J. Ward, pro se.
    Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Reedie J. Ward seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from a previous order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Ward’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded sixty days after entry of the district court>s final judgment or order to note an appeal) Fed.R.App.R 4(a)(1)) unless the district C(mrfc extends ^ appeal period under FecLR.App.R 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed-R-AppR 4(a)(6). This appeal period is «mandatory and jurisdic_ t¡onal_„ Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 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 July 5, 2000. Ward’s notice of appeal was filed on December 27, 2000. Because Ward 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.