US v. Cradle, (4th Cir. 2000)

Text

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7187 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

MARIO LEONARDO CRADLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-

trict of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, Dis-

trict Judge. (CR-90-17-ST, CA-95-121-5-V)

Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 20, 2000

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mario Leonardo Cradle, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM

Mario Leonardo Cradle seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 0). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Cradle’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, 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 September 19, 1996. Cradle’s notice of appeal was filed on August , 2000. Because Cradle 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

---