United States v. Thomas

86 F. App'x 642
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 9, 2004
Docket03-7607
StatusUnpublished

This text of 86 F. App'x 642 (United States v. Thomas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Thomas, 86 F. App'x 642 (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying 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, 98 S. Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on June 28, 2000. The notice of appeal was filed on August 14, 2003. * Because Thomas 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 Thomas’ motion for a certificate of appeal-ability as moot, and 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

*

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. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Robinson
361 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 1960)
Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill.
434 U.S. 257 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Houston v. Lack
487 U.S. 266 (Supreme Court, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
86 F. App'x 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-thomas-ca4-2004.