UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7074
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
LAWRENCE S. SPIVEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CR-01-786; CA-04-1872)
Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 21, 2005
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence Spivey, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence S. Spivey seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and
denying reconsideration. 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 denying relief on Spivey’s
§ 2255 motion was entered on the docket on March 30, 2005, and the
order denying Spivey’s motion for reconsideration was entered on
the docket on April 26, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on
June 28, 2005.* Because Spivey failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,
we deny Spivey’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
*
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. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
- 2 -
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 -