US v. Reyes

Filing 920080327

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-2074

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDWIN ARNOLDO REYES, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:01-cr-00533-PJM; 8:05-cv-00255-PJM)

Submitted:

March 25, 2008

Decided:

March 27, 2008

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edwin Arnoldo Reyes, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Edwin Arnoldo Reyes seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motion for reconsideration. 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). "mandatory and jurisdictional." This appeal period is

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 final order was entered on the docket on December 14, 2005. October 6, 2007.* The notice of appeal was filed on

Because Reyes failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the are adequately presented in the

contentions

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 -

*

materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -