Court Opinion

ID: 1022926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:30:03.569675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:23:15.128754
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 06-7989

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

SCOTT MARSHALL,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
District Judge. (2:02-cr-00226-5; 2:05-cv-00046)

Submitted:   June 21, 2007                  Decided:   June 26, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scott Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Charles T. Miller, United States
Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

               Scott Marshall seeks to appeal the district court’s order

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and 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 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361

U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

               The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

June 26, 2006.          The notice of appeal was filed on October 30,

2006.*   Because Marshall 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

     *
      For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

                                      - 2 -
materials   before   the   court   and     argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                    DISMISSED

                                   - 3 -