Case Name: STATIC CONTROL COMPONENTS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reza H. AHMADI; Intelligent Office Products, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-23
Citations: 358 F. App'x 416
Docket Number: No. 09-1082
Parties: STATIC CONTROL COMPONENTS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reza H. AHMADI; Intelligent Office Products, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 416–417

Head Matter:
STATIC CONTROL COMPONENTS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Reza H. AHMADI; Intelligent Office Products, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 09-1082.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 17, 2009.
Decided: Dec. 23, 2009.
Reza H. Ahmadi, Appellant Pro Se. William L. London, III, Sanford, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reza H. Ahmadi and his corporation Intelligent Office Products, Inc. seek to appeal the district court's final order entering a default judgment against them. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court's final judg ment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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, 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 December 4, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on January 6, 2009. Because Appellants failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to 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.