UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6427
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARJIL LEE BERGARA, a/k/a Michael Bergara, a/k/a Michael
Begera,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00053-jpj-mfu-1; 1:08-cv-80041-jpj-mfu)
Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 28, 2009
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marjil Lee Bergara, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer,
Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marjil Lee Bergara seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009)
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). “[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 order was entered on the docket
on December 17, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on
February 27, 2009. * Because Bergara failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny
Bergara’s motion to supplement his informal brief, and dismiss
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the certificate of service with the notice of
appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly
delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R.
App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 267 (1988).
2
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
3