UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6299
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHERONE INMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-00-50-2-7-FO, CA-01-188-7-F)
Submitted: July 18, 2002 Decided: July 23, 2002
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cherone Inman, Appellant Pro Se. Felice McConnell Corpening,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Cherone Inman seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion. We dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because Inman’s notice of
appeal was not timely filed.
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 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
October 11, 2001. Inman’s undated notice of appeal was filed on
January 8, 2002. Because Inman 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