Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James MCLAUGHLIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-10-17
Citations: 21 F. App'x 112
Docket Number: No. 00-6769
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James MCLAUGHLIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 21
Pages: 112–113

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James MCLAUGHLIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-6769.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 20, 2001.
Decided Oct. 17, 2001.
James McLaughlin, pro se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, VA, for appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James McLaughlin seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001) motion. We remanded the case for a factual determination of when McLaughlin placed his notice of appeal in the prison mail system. The Government produced a log indicating the date was May 4, 2000. McLaughlin did not challenge the determination. We find the district court did not err in determining the date. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because McLaughlin's notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Where the United States is a party, parties are accorded sixty days after entry of the district court's final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1), 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. Director, 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 1, 1999. McLaughlin's notice of appeal was placed in the institution's internal mail system on May 4, 2000. Because McLaughlin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension for reopening of the appeal period, we 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.