UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7289
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIE LAWSON, a/k/a Uncle Willie,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:02-cr-00302-GBL-1; 1:08-cv-00408-GBL)
Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 23, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Lawson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Edward Rich, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Lawson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2009) 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 November 21, 2008. The notice of appeal may be deemed filed,
at the earliest, on June 9, 2009. * Because Lawson failed to file
*
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
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
3