Hinton v. United States , 191 F. App'x 211 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6247
    FRANK LATHAN HINTON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; US MARSHAL’S OFFICE;
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; BUREAU OF
    PRISONS,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
    Judge. (2:05-cv-00453-RBS)
    Submitted: July 20, 2006                         Decided: July 26, 2006
    Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Frank Lathan Hinton, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Frank Lathan Hinton seeks to appeal the district court’s
    judgment dismissing without prejudice his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     (2000)
    petition and the order denying his motion for reconsideration.   We
    dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of
    appeal was not timely filed.
    When the United States or its officer or agency is a
    party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days
    after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order,
    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. Dir., 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 judgment was entered September 13,
    2006, and the order denying reconsideration was entered September
    20, 2005.     The notice of appeal was filed on February 3, 2006.*
    Because Hinton failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
    obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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 properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
    court. 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-6247

Citation Numbers: 191 F. App'x 211

Judges: Hamilton, Per Curiam, Widener, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 7/26/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023