Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

194 F. App'x 112

United States v. Thomas

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided August 16, 2006

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2006-08-16

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · United States v. Robinson

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion · Decided 2006-08-16

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Millard James Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely 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.

¶2 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)).

¶3 The district court’s order was entered on the docket on December 13, 2005. We deem Thomas’ notice of appeal to have been filed no earlier than February 21, 2006, the date it was apparently given to prison officials for mailing. 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 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.

¶4 DISMISSED.

/194/fappx/112 · .json · Public domain