UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7312
TONY R. SELLMON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
B. G. COMPTON,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (03-169-jct)
Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: July 21, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tony R. Sellmon, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Linn Eckert, Assistant
United States Attorney, John Leslie Brownlee, United States
Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tony R. Sellmon seeks to appeal from the district court’s
order dismissing his habeas petition challenging the United States
Parole Commission’s determination in his case. This case is back
in this court after a limited remand to determine if Sellmon had
shown excusable neglect or good cause to warrant an extension of
time for filing a notice of appeal. The district court found
Sellmon failed to make such a showing. See Sellmon v. Compton, No.
03-169-jct (W.D. Va. Apr. 19, 2005). We therefore dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was
not timely filed.
Parties in a civil action in which the United States is
a party are accorded sixty days after the court’s entry of final
judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B),
unless the 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 US. 220, 229 (1960)).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
May 10, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on August 2, 2004.*
*
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 -
Because Sellmon failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
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 adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -