United States v. Wilson

15 F. App'x 176

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Patrice Behanzin Wilson appeals the district court’s order denying in part and granting in part his motion for reconsideration of a previous order. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Wilson’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded sixty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1), 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. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 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 December 22, 2000. Wilson’s letter, which was construed as a notice of appeal, was filed on March 19, 2001, beyond the sixty-day appeal period. Even taking the date noted on Wilson’s letter, March 13, 2001, as the date the notice of appeal was filed, the appeal is still untimely. Because Appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.