US v. Brooks, No. 06-6187 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6187 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TIMOTHY BROOKS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:03-cr-00510-WDQ; 1:05-cv-01193-WDQ) Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 29, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Timothy Brooks 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). mandatory and jurisdictional. This appeal period is Browder v. Dir., 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 was entered on the docket on August 24, 2005. 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on January 27, Because Brooks failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. Brooks motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.