United States v. Farmer

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6000
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHERWIN TIMOTHY FARMER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District
Judge. (CR-98-33, CA-99-123-7)
Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 20, 2000
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sherwin Timothy Farmer, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Sherwin Timothy Farmer seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2000) and his motions for reconsideration. We deny a certif-
icate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
In appeals involving the United States, 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)(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.
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 denying Farmer’s § 2255 motion was
entered on the docket on August 28, 1999. On September 10, Farmer
filed a pleading construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). This motion was denied by an order
entered September 30. Although Farmer moved for reconsideration of
this order, only the first of multiple motions for reconsideration
targeting the same unaltered judgment will extend the deadline for
taking an appeal. See Charles v. Daley, 799 F.2d 343, 347-48 (7th
Cir. 1986). Accordingly, Farmer’s notice of appeal was due on No-
vember 29. Farmer’s notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest,
on December 6, 1999. Accordingly, we deny Farmer’s motion for a
2
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal from the
underlying order as untimely.
Farmer’s notice of appeal was timely, however, as to the dis-
trict court’s denial of his final two motions for reconsideration.
We review the district court’s denial of these motions for an abuse
of discretion and find none. See Heyman v. M.L. Mktg. Co., 116
F.3d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1997) (providing standard). Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of
Farmer’s appeal. We also deny Farmer’s motion for appointment of
counsel, and 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