Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06963/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06963-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Dwayne Jones
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6963

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JEFFREY DWAYNE JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen M. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (1:03-cr-00123; 7:05-cv-00299)

Submitted: November 6, 2007 Decided: November 15, 2007

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Dwayne Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6963 Doc: 23 Filed: 11/15/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Dwayne Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the 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, 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. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978)

(quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The

district court’s order was entered on the docket on January 9,

2006. The notice of appeal was, at the earliest, filed on June 21,

2007. Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal and

is not entitled to reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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

Appeal: 07-6963 Doc: 23 Filed: 11/15/2007 Pg: 2 of 2