UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7516
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIE DARRYL NESBITT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-98-80, CA-99-2328-7-20)
Submitted: January 13, 2000 Decided: January 20, 2000
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Darryl Nesbitt, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Willie Darryl Nesbitt filed an untimely notice of appeal. We
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for
filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These
periods are “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)). Parties to civil
actions in which the United States is a party have sixty days
within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from
judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only
exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends
the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the
appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
The district court entered its order on August 16, 1999;
Nesbitt’s notice of appeal was filed on October 28, 1999.
Nesbitt’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal* or to obtain
either an extension or a reopening of the appeal period leaves this
court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of his appeal.
We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
*
For the purposes of this appeal we assume that the date
Appellant wrote on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it
would have been submitted to prison authorities. See Houston v.
Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3