Court Opinion

ID: 1020621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:54:01.602589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:01.633544
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-7084

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

MAURICE CALVIN DOUGLAS, JR.,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (3:00-cr-00140-REP; 3:06-cv-081)

Submitted: September 26, 2006              Decided: October 3, 2006

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice Calvin Douglas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Maurice Calvin Douglas, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as

successive. 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

February 6, 2006.   The notice of appeal was filed on June 7, 2006.

Because Douglas 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 -