Case ID: f-appx_32/html/0079-02.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

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Addo JAYSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-7985.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 21, 2002.
    Decided April 2, 2002.
    
      Addo Jayson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Addo Jayson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Jayson’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, 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, 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 June 28, 2001. Jayson’s notice of appeal was filed at the earliest on November 11, 2001. Because Jayson 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.