Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold Steven JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-27
Citations: 231 F. App'x 255
Docket Number: No. 07-6173
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Harold Steven JACKSON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 255–255

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Harold Steven JACKSON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6173.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 21, 2007.
Decided: June 27, 2007.
Harold Steven Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Harold Steven Jackson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely. 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. RApp. 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, 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 July 25, 2006. The notice of appeal was dated October 24, 2006, and filed on November 29, 2006. Because Jackson 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.