United States v. Wilkins ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6867
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    LODERGUS DANIEL WILKINS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
    Judge. (CR-00-483; CA-05-448-7)
    Submitted:   September 27, 2005           Decided:   October 3, 2005
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lodergus Daniel Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Lodergus Daniel Wilkins 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, 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. 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
    March 3, 2005.    The notice of appeal was filed on May 24, 2005.*
    Because Wilkins failed to file a timely notice of appeal or 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
    *
    We have given Wilkins the benefit of the ruling in Houston v.
    Lack, 
    487 U.S. 266
     (1988), in determining the date on which he
    filed his materials in the district court.
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-6867

Judges: Luttig, Motz, Duncan

Filed Date: 10/3/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024