UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7434
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THEODORE GLENN BROOKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:00-cr-00293-TDS-6; 1:08-cv-00211-TDS-PTS;
1:08-cv-00277-TDS-PTS)
Submitted: March 22, 2010 Decided: April 16, 2010
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theodore Glenn Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Theodore Glenn Brooks seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying as time-barred his motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. 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 February 3, 2009. Giving Brooks the benefit of Fed. R. App.
P. 4(c) and 4(d), his notice of appeal was filed at the earliest
on May 26, 2009, the date he signed it. This is well past the
sixty-day appeal period. Accordingly, because Brooks failed to
file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny
Brooks’s motion for a certificate of appealability. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3