Rehearing granted and
appeal dismissed by
opinion filed 5/17/02
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7961
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL L. MOORE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CR-97-362-A, CA-00-1776-AM)
Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 11, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael L. Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst, As-
sistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael L. Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying his motions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2001), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We dismiss the appeal from the
denial of the § 2255 motion for lack of jurisdiction because the
appeal was untimely filed. The district court entered its order
denying § 2255 relief on June 25, 2001. Moore did not file his
notice of appeal within the sixty-day appeal period provided by
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), nor did the district court extend the
appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopen the appeal
period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). We therefore deny a cer-
tificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction.
In his motion, Moore sought reconsideration of the court’s
denial of his § 2255 motion. We have reviewed the record and the
district court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion. Accord-
ingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this
portion of the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.
Unites States v. Moore, Nos. CR-97-362-A; CA-00-1776-AM (E.D. Va.
July 23, 2001). 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
3