United States v. Lutz , 56 F. App'x 133 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-7792
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DANIEL LUTZ,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR-
    95-293-PJM, CA-99-3663-HMH)
    Submitted:   January 16, 2003             Decided:   January 29, 2003
    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Daniel Lutz, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Clayton White, Lynne Ann
    Battaglia, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
    Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Daniel Lutz seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
    his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion.     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 dated June 25, 2002, and
    entered on the docket on June 28, 2002.    The notice of appeal was
    filed on October 15, 2002. Because Lutz 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 deny Lutz’s motion to compel and motion to expand
    the record.    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: 02-7792

Citation Numbers: 56 F. App'x 133

Judges: Williams, King, Gregory

Filed Date: 1/29/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024