UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 07-7607

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

GREGORY HINTON, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District 

Judge. (1:00-cr-0180-GBL) 

Submitted: February 2, 2009 Decided: February 20, 2009 

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Gregory Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Dabney P. Langhorne, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Gregory Hinton seeks to appeal several orders entered 

by the district court. He first seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order granting his motion to reopen the time period for 

filing an appeal of the denial of his second Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b) motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008) 

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 Hinton’s second 

Rule 60(b) motion was entered on the docket on September 19, 

2006. The court reopened the appeal period for fourteen days in 

an order entered on May 4, 2007. Hinton’s notice of appeal was 

not filed until October 2, 2007. Because Hinton failed to 

properly file a timely notice of appeal after he obtained a 

2 
reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis and dismiss his appeal of the underlying 

September 19, 2006 order and subsequent May 4, 2007 order. 

Hinton also seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

entered August 23, 2007, denying his third Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) 

motion for reconsideration of the order denying relief on his 

§ 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 

(4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue 

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the 

district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive 

procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 

683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the 

record and conclude that Hinton has not made the requisite 

showing. Accordingly, as to the appeal of the district court’s 

order entered August 23, 2007, we deny a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

3 
4 

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