Rehearing granted by order filed 11/4/03; opinion filed 8/22/03 is vacated UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6899

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RODERICK EMMANUEL STEADMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CR-00-248-A, CA-01-1573-A)

Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 22, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roderick Emmanuel Steadman, Appellant Pro Se. Sonya LaGene Sacks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Roderick Emmanuel Steadman seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under

(2000). 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.,

(1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson,

(1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April

2, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on May 27, 2003.* Because

Steadman failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an

extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack,

(1988).

3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

4