Bennett v. United States , 155 F. App'x 716 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1710
MATTHEW J. BENNETT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
(CA-04-705-7-GEC)
Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 1, 2005
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Matthew J. Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen M. Wolfinger,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Matthew J. Bennett appeals from the district court’s
orders dismissing his complaint in which he requested that the
district court enjoin the withholding of federal income tax from
his wages pursuant to instructions from the Internal Revenue
Service to his employer, and denying his motion for reconsideration
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We affirm in part and dismiss
in part.
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 dismissing the complaint was
entered on the docket on March 29, 2005. The notice of appeal was
filed on June 21, 2005. Because Bennett failed to file a timely
notice of appeal from the dismissal order or to obtain an extension
or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss this portion of the
appeal.
- 2 -
Bennett’s notice of appeal was timely, however, with respect
to the district court’s June 9, 2005, order denying his motion for
reconsideration of the dismissal. We have reviewed the record and
the district court’s opinion denying the motion and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm this order for the
reasons stated by the district court. Bennett v. United States,
No. CA-04-705-7-GEC (W.D. Va. filed June 9, 2005; entered June 10,
2005). Additionally, we deny the United States’ motion for
sanctions. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
- 3 -