UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6554
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PATRICE BEHANZIN WILSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (CR-96-34-5-BR, CA-00-229-5-BR)
Submitted: July 17, 2001 Decided: August 14, 2001
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrice Behanzin Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver,
Assistant United States Attorney, John Samuel Bowler, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Patrice Behanzin Wilson appeals the district court’s order
denying in part and granting in part his motion for reconsideration
of a previous order. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdic-
tion because Wilson’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, 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 jurisdic-
tional.” 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
December 22, 2000. Wilson’s letter, which was construed as a
notice of appeal, was filed on March 19, 2001, beyond the sixty-day
appeal period. Even taking the date noted on Wilson’s letter,
March 13, 2001, as the date the notice of appeal was filed, the
appeal is still untimely. Because Appellant 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
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3