United States v. Robinson , 53 F. App'x 720 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7731
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY ROBINSON, a/k/a Tony,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge; Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-
91-161-A, CA-02-137-AM)
Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 7, 2003
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying his motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). 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 orders were entered on the docket on
January 7, 2002, and February 6, 2002. The notice of appeal was
dated September 30, 2002, and filed on November 1, 2002. Because
Robinson 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