U.S. v. ROBERTSON, 13-7624. (2014)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20140304131
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 04, 2014
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Darryle Edward Robertson seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and denying his request for a certificate of appealability. 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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Darryle Edward Robertson seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and denying his request for a certificate of appealability. 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 t..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Darryle Edward Robertson seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and denying his request for a certificate of appealability. 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). "[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement." Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court's orders were entered on the docket on October 14, 2011, and October 2, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on October 1, 2013. Because Robertson 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 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
Source: Leagle
