United States v. Canady

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7374
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GRADY CANADY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CR-98-438, CA-00-1962-A)
Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 30, 2001
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Grady Canady, Appellant Pro Se. Dabney P. Langhorne, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Grady Canady appeals the district court’s order denying his 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion. We dismiss the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction because Canady’s notice of appeal was not
timely filed.
When the United States is a party, parties are accorded sixty
days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to
note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), 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 Corrections, 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 May 7,
2001. Canady’s notice of appeal is deemed to be filed no earlier
than August 9, 2001.* Because Canady 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
*
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 given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App.
P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3