United States v. Rito Antonio Cubides
United States v. Rito Antonio Cubides
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6038
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RITO ANTONIO CUBIDES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-267-AW, CA-98-1774-AW, CA-98-2836-AW)
Submitted: March 23, 2000 Decided: April 11, 2000
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rito Antonio Cubides, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Rito Antonio Cubides seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion filed under
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(West Supp.
1999). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because
Cubides’ notice of appeal was not timely filed.
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(b)(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)).
Cubides’ notice of appeal was filed more than sixty days after
the district court entered its order. Because Cubides failed to
file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or re-
opening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appeal-
ability and 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
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished