UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6994
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN BRANNON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-95-370, CA-00-639-7-20)
Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Brannon, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Edward Brannon seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion as un-
timely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because
Brannon’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 when the United
States is a party, 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. Direc-
tor, 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 March
14, 2000. Brannon’s notice of appeal was filed on July 12, 2000.
Because Brannon 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