United States v. McLaughlin , 21 F. App'x 112 ( 2001 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6769
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES MCLAUGHLIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CR-94-47, CA-98-953-2)
Submitted: September 20, 2001 Decided: October 17, 2001
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished opinion per curiam opinion.
James McLaughlin, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James McLaughlin seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion. We re-
manded the case for a factual determination of when McLaughlin
placed his notice of appeal in the prison mail system. The Gov-
ernment produced a log indicating the date was May 4, 2000.
McLaughlin did not challenge the determination. We find the dis-
trict court did not err in determining the date. We dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction because McLaughlin’s notice of
appeal was not timely filed.
Where 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 ap-
peal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director,
Dep’t of Corr., 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
December 1, 1999. McLaughlin’s notice of appeal was placed in the
institution’s internal mail system on May 4, 2000. Because
McLaughlin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension for reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
2
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