UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7402
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BARRY LEE SAUNDERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-96-205, CA-01-1184)
Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 6, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Barry Lee Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Barry Lee Saunders seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion for leave to file an untimely motion pursuant to
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) and denying his motion for a
downward departure pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 3E1.1. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because
Saunders’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 May
11, 2001. Saunders’s notice of appeal was filed on August 20,
2001. Because Saunders failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dis-
miss 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