United States v. Hoggard ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6387
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RICKEY COLLINS HOGGARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:04-cr-00066-RGD-2; 2:05-cv-00633-RGD)
Submitted: February 28, 2007 Decided: March 21, 2007
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rickey Collins Hoggard, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Murdock Robbins,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rickey Collins Hoggard seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(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. 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 denying Hoggard’s § 2255
motion was entered December 13, 2005, and the sixty-day appeal
period expired on February 13, 2006.* We initially remanded this
case to the district court to determine whether Hoggard timely
filed his notice of appeal. See United States v. Hoggard, No. 06-
6387, 2006 WL 2385266 (4th Cir. Aug. 18, 2006) (unpublished). On
remand, the district court determined that the notice of appeal was
*
Because the sixtieth day of the appeal period fell on
Saturday, February 11, 2006, Hoggard had until Monday, February 13,
to timely file his notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(3).
- 2 -
filed on February 17, 2006, several days after the sixty-day appeal
period expired. Hoggard does not challenge this factual finding.
Because Hoggard failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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
- 3 -