UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7192
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTOINE NOBEL SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:01-cr-00180-BO, 5:05-cv-00132-BO)
Submitted: August 22, 2007 Decided: September 6, 2007
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antoine Nobel Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antoine Nobel Smith 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. 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 was entered on the docket on
April 11, 2006. Giving Smith the benefit of Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266 (1988), the notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest,
on June 26, 2006. Because Smith 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 presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -