United States v. Ferrell

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7631 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM PHILLIP FERRELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR- 97-41-PJM, CA-98-2471-PJM) Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Phillip Ferrell, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; David Ira Salem, As- sistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Phillip Ferrell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Ferrell’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 August 27, 1999. Ferrell’s notice of appeal was filed on November 17, 1999.* Because Ferrell 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 * For the purposes of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 2 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3