United States v. Trent ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6039
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KEVIN LAMONT TRENT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CR-97-4, CA-01-115-7)
Submitted: May 28, 2003 Decided: July 9, 2003
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Lamont Trent, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Lamont Trent seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) 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. Dir., 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
September 24, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on December 18,
2002.* Because Trent 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
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266(1988).
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3