UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7037
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FREDERICK ANTHONY CARGILL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-94-300; CA-03-937)
Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 26, 2005
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederick Anthony Cargill, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Patrick
Auld, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Frederick Cargill seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying 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. 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
June 18, 2004. Cargill filed a request for certificate of
appealability on June 6, 2005. Because Cargill failed to file a
timely notice of appeal, and because he did not obtain an extension
or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motion for
certificate of appealability and 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
- 2 -