UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6054
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERICKA L. FLOOD, a/k/a Ericka Lomick,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:10-cr-00124-MOC-2; 3:12-cv-00186-MOC)
Submitted: September 6, 2013 Decided: September 16, 2013
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ericka L. Flood, Appellant Pro Se. Kurt William Meyers,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ericka L. Flood seeks to appeal the district court’s
order granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment and
dismissing her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. We
granted a limited remand for further factual development on the
issue of whether Flood noted a timely appeal. United States v.
Flood, No. 13-6054, 2013 WL 1943792 (4th Cir. May 13, 2013)
(unpublished). After reviewing the district court’s additional
findings, we conclude that the notice of appeal was not timely
filed and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
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 August 8, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on January 7,
2
2013. * Because Flood 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
*
We agree with the district court’s assessment that January
7 is the earliest date the notice of appeal 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 (1988).
3