Court Opinion

ID: 1003688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:30:21.64009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:24.677807
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 01-1057

REEDIE J. WARD,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-
trict of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CA-98-886-6)

Submitted:   February 22, 2001             Decided:   March 1, 2001

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reedie J. Ward, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Reedie J. Ward seeks to appeal the district court’s order de-

nying his motion for relief from a previous order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000).    We dis-

miss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Ward’s notice of

appeal was not timely filed.

     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 Corrections, 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 July

5, 2000.   Ward’s notice of appeal was filed on December 27, 2000.

Because Ward 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