United States v. Sanderlin ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 00-6090
BERNARD MONTGOMERY SANDERLIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.
(CR-97-61, CA-98-1074-2)
Submitted: July 20, 2000
Decided: August 1, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges,
and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Bernard Montgomery Sanderlin, Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Montgomery Sanderlin appeals from a district court order
that dismissed his October 15, 1999 motion to reopen the time period
within which to file a notice of appeal from the court's April 19, 1999
denial of relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2000). The court also
denied Sanderlin's request for a certificate of appealability. We deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
A motion to reopen the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)
must be filed either within 180 days after the court's order was
entered or within seven days after the moving party receives notice
of the entry, "whichever is earlier." Notice of the district court's final
order was mailed to Sanderlin's attorney on April 19, 1999, and
Sanderlin himself acknowledges he personally received notice of the
district court's order on May 31, 1999 while in disciplinary segrega-
tion.* Thus, even if a motion to reopen the appeal period were neces-
sary, it should have been filed by June 9, 1999 to be timely, taking
May 31 as the date Sanderlin was notified of the court's final order.
Sanderlin's October 15 motion therefore was untimely.
For these reasons, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss. We also deny Sander-
lin's motion for leave to file a late appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
_________________________________________________________________
*We note that Sanderlin actually had until June 18, 1999 to note his
appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B).
2