UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7607
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GREGORY HINTON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:00-cr-0180-GBL)
Submitted: February 2, 2009 Decided: February 20, 2009
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. Dabney P. Langhorne, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Hinton seeks to appeal several orders entered
by the district court. He first seeks to appeal the district
court’s order granting his motion to reopen the time period for
filing an appeal of the denial of his second Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008)
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 denying Hinton’s second
Rule 60(b) motion was entered on the docket on September 19,
2006. The court reopened the appeal period for fourteen days in
an order entered on May 4, 2007. Hinton’s notice of appeal was
not filed until October 2, 2007. Because Hinton failed to
properly file a timely notice of appeal after he obtained a
2
reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismiss his appeal of the underlying
September 19, 2006 order and subsequent May 4, 2007 order.
Hinton also seeks to appeal the district court’s order
entered August 23, 2007, denying his third Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion for reconsideration of the order denying relief on his
§ 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369
(4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue
absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the
district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive
procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,
683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Hinton has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, as to the appeal of the district court’s
order entered August 23, 2007, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
3
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
4