UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6865
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JACOB A. BOLDEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-99-74, CA-02-103)
Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: August 12, 2003
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jacob A. Bolden, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jacob A. Bolden seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).
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 entered on the docket on July
15, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on May 21, 2003.* Because
Bolden 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
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3