Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cedric Levar ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-19
Citations: 180 F. App'x 475
Docket Number: No. 05-7189
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Cedric Levar ALEXANDER, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 180
Pages: 475–476

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Cedric Levar ALEXANDER, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7189.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 16, 2006.
Decided: May 19, 2006.
John Weber III, Weber Pearson, PC, Roanoke, Virginia; Robert Alen Ratliff, Robert A. Ratliff, PC, Mobile, Aabama, for Appellant. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Cedric Levar Aexander 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 is a party, a 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. RApp. 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, 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 judgment was entered on the docket on May 26, 2005. Aexander's counsel certified that he electronically filed the notice of appeal on July 26, 2005. Because Aexander failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal peri od, 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