Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isiah LAND, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-20
Citations: 203 F. App'x 461
Docket Number: No. 06-7030
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isiah LAND, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 461–462

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isiah LAND, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-7030.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 20, 2006.
Isiah Land, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Isiah Land 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 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. 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 April 12, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on May 30, 2006. Because the notice of appeal was untimely, we deny Land's motion for a Government voucher and benefits, deny a certificate of appealability, 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.
Although the district court's judgment was not set forth on a separate document, judgment was entered pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(b)(2)(B) on September 9, 2005.