Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lori D. BLAKELY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-28
Citations: 97 F. App'x 453
Docket Number: No. 04-6163
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lori D. BLAKELY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 97
Pages: 453–454

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lori D. BLAKELY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6163.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 26, 2004.
Decided: May 28, 2004.
Lori D. Blakely, Appellant pro se.
Michael Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lori D. Blakely seeks to appeal the dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion entered on August 20, 2003. Blakely, however, did not file her notice of appeal until January 12, 2004, which is outside the sixty day appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Blakely's "Motion to Extend Time to File Out>-of-Time Appeal" was filed on December 15, 2003, beyond the thirty-day period allowed under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5). Thus, the district court's order granting the motion could not extend the appeal period. Shah v. Hutto, 722 F.2d 1167, 1168 (4th Cir.1983). The 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)).
Blakely's pro se motion to extend and notice of appeal, in which she alleged that she did not timely receive notice of her action being dismissed, may be properly construed as a motion to reopen the time to note an appeal under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). United States v. Feuver, 236 F.3d 725, 729 & n. 7 (D.C.Cir.2001). Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for it to determine whether Blakely can satisfy the requirements of Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 454 (10th Cir.1994). We express no opinion as to whether Blakely has met the requirements of Rule 4(a)(6). The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.
REMANDED
This court has given Blakely the benefit of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), regarding the filing dates of her documents.