Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Galen Clifton SHAWVER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-30
Citations: 143 F. App'x 557
Docket Number: No. 05-6727
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Galen Clifton SHAWVER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 143
Pages: 557–557

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Galen Clifton SHAWVER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-6727.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 27, 2005.
Decided: Sept. 30, 2005.
Galen Clifton Shawver, Appellant Pro Se.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Galen Clifton Shawver seeks to appeal the district court's order denying 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. RApp. 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 February 22, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on May 8, 2005. Because Shawver failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis 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
We have given Shawver the benefit of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), in determining the date in which he filed materials in the district court.