United States of America v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 1988 . PER CURIAM: Forest Gibbs, Jr., seeks to appeal the…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6516
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FOREST GIBBS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-02-1158; CA-04-1246-2)
Submitted: June 9, 2005 Decided: June 17, 2005
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Forest Gibbs, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lee Ellis Berlinsky, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

*The envelope containing Gibbs’ notice of appeal indicates
that he delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing on
April 1, 2005. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
PER CURIAM:
Forest Gibbs, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on 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.
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
July 9, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on April 1, 2005. *
Because Gibbs 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.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --