UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7760
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES CURTIS JOHNSON, a/k/a Curt,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CR-90-1-HO; CA-03-245-5-H)
Submitted: March 10, 2004 Decided: March 22, 2004
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Curtis Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Witcover Dean,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Curtis Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying
reconsideration of that order. 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 denying reconsideration was
entered on the docket on August 15, 2003. The record reflects that
the notice of appeal was delivered to prison officials for mailing
on October 25, 2003. Because Johnson failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. Johnson’s “Motion to
Supplement” is denied as moot. 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 -