Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06400/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06400-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marshall D. Brooks
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6400

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARSHALL D. BROOKS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District

Judge. (3:02-cr-00454-HEH-1; 3:05-cv-00348-HEH)

Submitted: June 9, 2008 Decided: June 27, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marshall D. Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Roderick Charles Young,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6400 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/27/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
*For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date

appearing on Brooks’ motion for a certificate of appealability is

the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison

officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston

v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Marshall D. Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on 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.

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 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361

U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order denying Brooks’ § 2255 motion

was entered July 11, 2006. Brooks subsequently filed a Motion for

Certificate of Appealability in the district court on June 28,

2007.* Even if this motion were determined to be the functional

equivalent of a notice of appeal, see Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244,

248-49 (1992), we conclude that it would have been untimely filed.

Because Brooks failed to file a timely notice of appeal or timely

Appeal: 08-6400 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/27/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

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

Appeal: 08-6400 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/27/2008 Pg: 3 of 3