UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7792
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DANIEL LUTZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR-
95-293-PJM, CA-99-3663-HMH)
Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 29, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Lutz, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Clayton White, Lynne Ann
Battaglia, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Lutz seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a party,
the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after
the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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 dated June 25, 2002, and
entered on the docket on June 28, 2002. The notice of appeal was
filed on October 15, 2002. Because Lutz 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 deny Lutz’s motion to compel and motion to expand
the record. 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