United States v. Barber ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6665
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DONALD RAY BARBER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-93-124)
Submitted: November 22, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald Ray Barber, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Donald Ray Barber seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his motion for return of forfeited property. We dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant’s notice of
appeal was not timely filed.
In civil cases in which the United States is a party,
litigants are accorded sixty days after the 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
February 3, 2000. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on April
26, 2000.* Because Appellant 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 mate-
*
For the purpose of this appeal we assume that the date ap-
pearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have
been given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
2
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3