UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7716
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ARTHUR WAYNE CLEMMER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:05-cr-00277-AW-1; 8:09-cv-03235-AW)
Submitted: March 3, 2011 Decided: April 15, 2011
Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur Wayne Clemmer, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne Skalla,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Wayne Clemmer seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)
and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions. 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 denying Clemmer’s § 2255
motion was entered on the docket on July 29, 2010 and its order
denying his timely Rule 59(e) motion was entered on the docket
on August 18, 2010. Clemmer asserts he placed his first notice
*
Clemmer has filed a notice of appeal from a district court
order purporting to deny his first notice of appeal as untimely.
Because the district court is without the authority to deny an
appeal, even if apparently untimely, we treat this as an appeal
solely from the orders denying Clemmer’s § 2255 and Rule 59(e)
motions.
2
of appeal in the prison’s internal mailing system for mailing on
November 3, 2010. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276
(1988). Crediting this version of events, Clemmer’s first
notice of appeal was nevertheless untimely by over two weeks.
Because Clemmer 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3