Jerry Resto-Diaz v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 1978 quoting United States v. Robinson,…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7195
JERRY RESTO-DIAZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CA-05-5-7-SGW)
Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: May 11, 2006
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry Resto-Diaz, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Resto-Diaz seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. 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
Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson,
361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).
The district court’s order dismissing Resto-Diaz’s motion
was entered on the docket on January 10, 2005. The notice of
appeal can be deemed filed, at the earliest, on July 27, 2005.
Because Resto-Diaz 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 --