United States v. Kirkland , 124 F. App'x 209 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7868
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DONALD KIRKLAND,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.     J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.
    (CR-89-391-JFM; CA-96-176)
    Submitted:   March 24, 2005                 Decided:   March 30, 2005
    Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Donald Kirkland, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; John Vincent Geise,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Donald Kirkland seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion.   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. 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
    May 30, 1996.   The notice of appeal was filed on November 5, 2004.
    Because Kirkland 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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-7868

Citation Numbers: 124 F. App'x 209

Judges: Gregory, Hamilton, Per Curiam, Widener

Filed Date: 3/30/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023