Case Name: Sidney LITTLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. B.A. BLEDSOE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-02-07
Citations: 3 F. App'x 62
Docket Number: No. 00-7434
Parties: Sidney LITTLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. B.A. BLEDSOE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 3
Pages: 62–63

Head Matter:
Sidney LITTLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. B.A. BLEDSOE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 00-7434.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2001.
Decided Feb. 7, 2001.
Sidney Little, pro se.
Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Sydney Little seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 1994) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Little's notice of appeal was not timely filed.
In civil cases in which 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.RApp.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 July 12, 2000. Little's notice of appeal was deemed filed on September 21, 2000, the day on which he delivered it to prison officials for mailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Because Little 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.