George G. Williams v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 1978 quoting United States v.…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1198
GEORGE G. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Jillyn K. Schulze, Magistrate Judge. (CA-
99-510-S)
Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 16, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George G. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Charlotte Mary Connery-Aujla,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
George G. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (West
Supp. 1999) seeking a review of a final decision of the Commission-
er of Social Security. We dismiss the appeal for lack of juris-
diction because Williams’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.
When the United States is a party, all 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), 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 De-
cember 3, 1999. Williams’s notice of appeal was filed on February
14, 2000. Because Williams 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 ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --