Court Opinion

ID: 1013340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:59:37.908393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:39.173665
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-7430

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

SALVADOR CAMPOS,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-00-191; CA-03-87)

Submitted:   May 12, 2004                   Decided:   May 26, 2004

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Salvador Campos, Appellant Pro Se.       Douglas Scott Broyles,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Salvador Campos seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely

filed.   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, a notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days

after 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. Director, 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

April 8, 2003.    The notice of appeal was filed on June 10, 2003.*

Because Campos 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

     *
      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. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).

                                - 2 -
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                        DISMISSED

                              - 3 -