UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6987
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TROY ANTHONY NEWMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-99-22-A)
Submitted: January 21, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2003
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Troy Anthony Newman, Appellant Pro Se. William Edward Fitzpatrick,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Troy Anthony Newman seeks to appeal the district court’s July
26, 2000, order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
motion, and the district court’s April 3, 2001, order denying his
motion for reconsideration.
As to Newman’s appeal of the district court’s July 26, 2000,
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of
appeal was not timely filed. Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B),
when the United States 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, unless: (1) under Fed. R. App. P.
4(b)(4), the district court, upon the defendant’s showing of good
cause or excusable neglect, grants the defendant a thirty day
extension; (2) under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), the district court
extends the appeal period; or (3) under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6),
the district court reopens the appeal period. This appeal period is
mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr.,
434 U.S. 257, 267 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361
U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on
the docket on July 26, 2000. Newman’s notice of appeal was filed
on June 6, 2001. Newman failed to file a timely notice of appeal,
and he did not seek an extension or reopening of the appeal period.
We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
2
Newman’s appeal as to this order. See United States v. Newman, No.
CR-99-22-A (E.D. Va. filed July 25, 2000, entered July 26, 2000).
As to Newman’s appeal of the district court’s April 3, 2001,
order denying his motion for reconsideration, we have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Newman, No.
CR-99-22-A (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 2, 2001, entered Apr. 3, 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
3