UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1738
WINFRED F. NICHOLSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 05-1362
WINFRED F. NICHOLSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (CA-02-3214-1; CA-02-3214-WMN)
Submitted: June 10, 2005 Decided: July 29, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
No. 04-1738 dismissed; No. 05-1362 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Winfred F. Nicholson, Appellant Pro Se. David I. Pincus, Samuel
Ashby Lambert, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In appeal No. 04-1738, Winfred F. Nicholson seeks to
appeal from the district court’s order dismissing his complaint
challenging the government’s filing of tax liens. Because the
notice of appeal was received in the district court after the
expiration of the appeal period, but within the thirty-day period
within which the district court may grant an extension of the
appeal period, we remanded the case to the district court for a
determination of whether there was excusable neglect or good cause
that would warrant an extension of the appeal period under Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(5).
On remand, the district court found no good cause and no
excusable neglect. The district court therefore did not grant an
extension of time to note the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this
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)).
- 3 -
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
March 31, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on June 3, 2004.
Because Nicholson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we grant the
government’s motion to dismiss appeal No. 04-1738 as untimely.
In appeal No. 05-1362, Nicholson appeals from the
district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of
the determination that he failed to show excusable neglect or good
cause and thereby denying his motion for an extension of time to
note his appeal. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of
discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See Nicholson v. United
States, No. CA-02-3214-1 (D. Md. Feb. 1, 2005). 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.
No. 04-1738 DISMISSED
No. 05-1362 AFFIRMED
- 4 -