US v. Jones
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY DWAYNE JONES, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00123; 7:05-cv-00299)
November 6, 2007
November 15, 2007
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Dwayne Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Dwayne Jones 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. Parties are accorded sixty days after the entry
of the district court's final judgment or order to note an appeal when the United States is a party, 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. Director, 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 January 9, 2006. 2007. The notice of appeal was, at the earliest, filed on June 21, Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal and
is not entitled to reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?