UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6522
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT MADISON BROOKS, a/k/a Pooh,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, District
Judge. (0:02-cr-01173-JFA-2; 0:09-cv-70086-JFA)
Submitted: July 7, 2011 Decided: July 28, 2011
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Madison Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Mikell
Johnson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Madison Brooks seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011)
motion and denying his motion to reconsider. We dismiss that
part of the appeal from the denial of the § 2255 motion for lack
of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely
filed as to that order. As to the order denying
reconsideration, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
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 November 16, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on April
13, 2011. The court’s order granting Brooks’ motion for an
extension of time in which to file a motion to reconsider did
not defer the appeal period. See Panhorst v. United States, 241
F.3d 367, 369-70 (4th Cir. 2001). Because Brooks failed to file
2
a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal from the order
denying the § 2255 motion.
In order for Brooks to appeal the denial of his motion
to reconsider, he must be granted a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate
of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court
denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must
demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is
debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Brooks has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
4