US v. Brannon, (4th Cir. 2001)

Text

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6994 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

JOHN BRANNON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-95-370, CA-00-639-7-20)

Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Brannon, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM

John Edward Brannon seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion as untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Brannon’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded sixty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal when the United States is a party, 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 March , 2000. Brannon’s notice of appeal was filed on July 12, 2000.

Because Brannon 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 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED

---