United States v. Wright

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7336
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
AL MALIK SHARIEF KAREEM WRIGHT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. William B. Traxler, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-92-408, CA-95-531-21AK)
Submitted: May 1, 1997 Decided: May 7, 1997
Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Al Malik Sharief Kareem Wright, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun
Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Caro-
lina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant noted his appeal from the district court's order
denying his motion for an extension of the appeal period. To the
extent that Appellant seeks to appeal from the denial of his motion
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West. 1994 & Supp. 1997), the
notice of appeal is untimely. The time periods for filing notices
of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are
"mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of
Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.
Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions in
which the United States is a party have sixty days within which to
file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or
final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the
appeal period are when the district court extends the time to
appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period
under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
The district court entered its order on December 6, 1995;
Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on August 20, 1996, which is
beyond the sixty-day appeal period. Appellant's failure to note a
timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves
this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appel-
lant's appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
To the extent that Appellant appeals from the district court's
order denying his motion for an extension of time within which to
note his appeal, we have reviewed the record and the district
2
court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm the denial of Appellant's motion for extension on the rea-
soning of the district court. United States v. Wright, Nos. CR-92-
408; CA-95-531-21AK (D.S.C., July 26, 1996). 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
3