Edward Harold Saunders, Jr v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 1978 quoting United States v. Robinson, 361…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6226
EDWARD HAROLD SAUNDERS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-01-737-5-H)
Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 8, 2002
Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Edward Harold Saunders, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (1994), and his motion for reconsideration filed under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b). We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
In civil actions where the United States is a party, parties
are accorded sixty days after entry of the district court’s final
judgment or order to note an appeal, see 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 denying § 2241 relief was entered
on the docket on November 8, 2001, and Saunders filed his notice of
appeal on January 25, 2002. Because Saunders failed to file a
timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s
November 8 order denying § 2241 relief. We therefore dismiss this
portion of the appeal.
With regard to the denial of Rule 60(b) relief, we have
reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no
abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm the denial of Rule 60(b)

-- 2 of 3 --

3
relief on the reasoning of the district court. Saunders v. United
States, No. CA-01-737-5-H (E.D.N.C. filed Jan. 10, 2002 & entered
Jan. 11, 2002). 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --