UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7739
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHNNIE LEON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-01-92; CA-03-382)
Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 22, 2006
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnnie Leon, Appellant Pro Se. John Staige Davis, V, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Johnnie Leon seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on 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).
The district court’s order denying relief on Leon’s
§ 2255 motion was entered July 14, 2005. The notice of appeal was
filed on October 27, 2005.* Because Leon failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we deny his motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume 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 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -