Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Darren TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-03-27
Citations: 31 F. App'x 264
Docket Number: No. 01-7648
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Darren TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 31
Pages: 264–264

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Darren TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-7648.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 21, 2002.
Decided March 27, 2002.
James Darren Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James Darren Taylor seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion (West Supp.2001). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant's 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, 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 26, 2001. Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on September 17, 2001. Because Appellant 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.