UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6579
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLTON BASHFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:01-cv-01030-JCC; 1:91-cr-00332-AVB-1)
Submitted: July 21, 2011 Decided: July 26, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carlton Bashford, Appellant Pro Se. Kondi J. Kleinman, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carlton Brashford seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e). 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 8, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on April
20, 2011, or beyond the sixty day appeal period. * Because
Brashford 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
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on 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
(1988).
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3