United States v. Fitzgerald

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6781 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARSHALL EARL FITZGERALD, a/k/a Marshall E. Fleming, a/k/a Mickey, a/k/a Brownie, a/k/a Allen Gibson, a/k/a Charles E. Fleaming, a/k/a Charles Fitzgerald, a/k/a Marshall E. Fleaming, a/k/a Marshall Fitzgerrel, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-250, CA-97-794-AM) Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 27, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marshall Earl Fitzgerald, Appellant Pro Se. Gerald J. Smagala, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have sixty within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court entered its order on September 3, 1997; Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on May 22, 1998, which is beyond the sixty-day appeal period. Appellant’s failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appel- lant’s appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2