Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Michael TURNER, a/k/a Boo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-09-14
Citations: 18 F. App'x 188
Docket Number: No. 01-6913
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Michael TURNER, a/k/a Boo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 18
Pages: 188–189

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Michael TURNER, a/k/a Boo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-6913.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 6, 2001.
Decided Sept. 14, 2001.
Eric Michael Turner, pro se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Office of the United States Attorney, Clarksburg, WV, for ap-pellee.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Eric M. Turner seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant's notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded sixty days if the United States is a party 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 February 21, 2001. Turner's notice of appeal was filed on May 29, 2001. Because Appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or 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.