United States of America v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 1988 , in determining the date in which he filed materials in the…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6727
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GALEN CLIFTON SHAWVER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
District Judge. (CR-00-262; CA-04-36-1)
Submitted: September 27, 2005 Decided: September 30, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Galen Clifton Shawver, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

*We have given Shawver the benefit of Houston v. Lack, 487
U.S. 266 (1988), in determining the date in which he filed
materials in the district court.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Galen Clifton Shawver seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying 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. Director, Dep’t of
Corrections, 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
February 22, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on May 8, 2005.*
Because Shawver failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain
an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motion
to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
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

-- 3 of 3 --