Court Opinion

ID: 1020192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:47:21.865767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:25.697474
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 06-6424

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

MILLARD JAMES THOMAS,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (3:01-cr-00285-REP-AL; 3:05-cv-00462-REP)

Submitted:   August 4, 2006                 Decided:   August 16, 2006

Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Millard James Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Maguire, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

          Millard James Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely 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

December 13, 2005.   We deem Thomas’ notice of appeal to have been

filed no earlier than February 21, 2006, the date it was apparently

given to prison officials for mailing.   Because Thomas 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

                               - 2 -