UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6315
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LAWSON JACOB DODSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CR-94-106; CA-00-285)
Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 16, 2004
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawson Jacob Dodson, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Carroll Eugene Dodson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of 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.
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. Dir., 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
October 31, 2002. The notice of appeal, dated January 3, 2003, was
received by the district court on January 8, 2003.* Because Dodson
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume the date appearing
on the envelope containing 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 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -