UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6284
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHAWN MCALLISTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:00-cr-00002-1; 1:03-cv-00211)
Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 26, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shawn McAllister, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Shawn McAllister 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 reconsideration was
entered on the docket on December 9, 2005. The notice of appeal
was filed on February 8, 2006.* Because McAllister 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
*
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 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -