United States v. Sumpter ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-7612
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JAMES DAMON SUMPTER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.
    (CR-90-25)
    Submitted:   April 13, 2000                 Decided:   April 19, 2000
    Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Damon Sumpter, Appellant Pro Se. Roscoe Conklin Howard, Jr.,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    James Damon Sumpter seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 1999) motion.      We dis-
    miss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Sumpter’s notice
    of appeal was not timely filed.
    In civil actions in which the United States or an officer or
    agency thereof is a party, all 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 peri-
    od 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 August
    25, 1999.     Sumpter’s notice of appeal was filed on November 22,
    1999.    Because Sumpter failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
    to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny
    a certificate of appealability and 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-7612

Filed Date: 4/19/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014