Case ID: f-appx_317/html/0312-01.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. Thomas Neil PICKETT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-6417.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 27,’ 2008.
    Decided: Sept. 8, 2008.
    
      Thomas Neil Pickett, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorney, Eric David Goulian, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Neil Pickett seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2006 & Supp.2008). 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 (I960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on December 17, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on March 19, 2008. Because Pickett 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. 
      
       Pickett's motion for an enlargement of time to file a Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 or Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 motion, signed on December 28, 2007, did not toll the period to file a notice of appeal because a district court may not extend the time to file a Rule 59 or Rule 60 motion. Fed. R.Civ.P. 6(b)(2); Alston v. MCI Communications Corp., 84 F.3d 705, 706 (4th Cir. 1996).