UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6221
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES E. KING, III,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:05-cr-00006-FPS-JES-1; 5:06-cv-
00156-FPS-JES)
Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 9, 2010
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James E. King, III, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hugh McWilliams,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James E. King, III, seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation denying his motion to vacate his sentence. 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 9, 2008. Although the district court granted King's
motion and reopened the appeal period, King was not entitled to
that relief. Rule 4(a)(6) states that the district court may
only re-open the time within which to file an appeal if the
movant so moves “within 180 days after the judgment or order is
entered or within 14 days after the moving party receives notice
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d) of the entry, whichever is earlier.”
Because King filed his motion more than 180 days after the
2
district court entered its order, the district court lacked
authority to reopen the appeal period.
Because King failed to file a timely notice of appeal
and the district court lacked authority to reopen 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3