US v. Terry Dowdell

Filing 920080407

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7779

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRY L. DOWDELL, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00107-nkm-1; 7:07-cv-00237-nkm-mfu)

Submitted:

February 20, 2008

Decided:

April 7, 2008

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry L. Dowdell, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Terry L. Dowdell seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 order was entered on the docket on September 20, 2007. 2007.* The notice of appeal was filed on November 20,

Because Dowdell 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 filed by Dowdell 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 -