Kazeem Ishola v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 1988 . - 2 - PER CURIAM: Kazeem Ishola seeks to appeal the…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6668
KAZEEM ISHOLA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:06-
cv-01266-PJM)
Submitted: September 26, 2007 Decided: October 18, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kazeem Ishola, Appellant Pro Se. George William Maugans, III,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

* 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 -
PER CURIAM:
Kazeem Ishola seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying Ishola’s pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 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). This appeal period is
“mandatory and jurisdictional.” 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
August 22, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on April 16,
2007.* Because Ishola 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

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --