UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6220
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RICHARD HENRY PARRISH, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CR-97-30041, CA-00-606-7)
Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 8, 2001
Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Henry Parrish, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Richard Parrish appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000), and a sub-
sequent order denying his motion for a certificate of appeal-
ability. As to his appeal of the district court’s denial of relief
on his § 2255 motion, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdic-
tion because Parrish’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. In
actions where the United States is a party, parties are accorded
sixty days after the 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 Corr., 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 3, 2000. Parrish’s notice
of appeal was filed on January 18, 2001.* Because Parrish failed
to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
*
Parrish mistakenly filed his notice of appeal with this
court on January 18, 2001. This court forwarded the notice of
appeal to the district court for filing. The notice of appeal was
thus filed in the district court on January 23, 2001. In
accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 4(d), Parrish’s notice of appeal is
deemed filed on January 18, 2001, the date the notice of appeal was
received by this court and sent to the district court.
2
reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal as to this
order.
With respect to Parrish’s appeal of the order denying his
motion for a certificate of appealability, we have reviewed the
district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on
the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Parrish,
Nos. CR-97-30041; CA-00-606-7 (W.D. Va. Nov. 21, 2000). We dis-
pense 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
3