text:                               UNPUBLISHED
  
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
  
  
                                No. 09-6175
  
  
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
  
                    Plaintiff – Appellee,
  
               v.
  
  RODNEY MAURICE SAUNDERS,
  
                    Defendant – Appellant.
  
  
  
  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
  Maryland, at Baltimore.     William D. Quarles, Jr., District
  Judge. (1:04-cr-00406-WDQ-1; 1:08-cv-00874-WDQ)
  
  
  Submitted:    April 8, 2009                     Decided:   May 26, 2009
  
  
  Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
  Circuit Judge.
  
  
  Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
  
  
  Rodney Maurice Saunders,      Appellant     Pro Se.    Paul M. Tiao,
  Assistant United States       Attorney,     Baltimore, Maryland, for
  Appellee.
  
  
  Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
  PER CURIAM:
  
              Rodney Maurice Saunders seeks to appeal the district
  
  court’s     order     denying       relief      on     his      28    U.S.C.A.        § 2255
  
  (West 2007) motion.          The district court’s order was entered on
  
  September 2, 2008.           Saunders’ notice of appeal was filed on
  
  January 26, 2009. *        In his notice of appeal, Saunders states that
  
  he did not receive notice of the district court’s order until
  
  January 26, 2009.
  
              Where the United States is a party to a civil action,
  
  the   parties   are    accorded       sixty     days      after      the   entry     of   the
  
  district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 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.,    434   U.S.   257,     264    (1978)        (quoting        United    States     v.
  
  Robinson,    361    U.S.    220,    229    (1960));       see     Bowles      v.    Russell,
  
  551 U.S. ____, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2366 (2007).
  
              Saunders’       notice     of       appeal       is      clearly       untimely.
  
  However, under Rule 4(a)(6), the district court may reopen the
  
        *
         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)(1); Houston v. Lack,
  487 U.S. 266 (1988).
  
  
  
                                              2
  time to file an appeal if: (1) the moving party did not receive
  
  notice of the entry of the order within twenty-one days after
  
  entry; (2) the motion is filed within 180 days of entry of the
  
  judgment or order or within seven days of receiving notice from
  
  the   court,   whichever   is   earlier;   and    (3)   no   party   would   be
  
  prejudiced.     We   accordingly   remand    to   the   district     court   to
  
  determine whether Saunders is entitled under Rule 4(a)(6) to the
  
  reopening of the appeal period.            The record, as supplemented,
  
  will then be returned to this court for further consideration.
  
  
  
                                                                       REMANDED
  
  
  
  
                                       3
  