UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7624
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRYLE EDWARD ROBERTSON, a/k/a Tiger,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:01-cr-00304-JFM-3)
Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darryle Edward Robertson, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis
Purcell, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Stephen
Schenning, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darryle Edward Robertson seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and
denying his request for a certificate of appealability. 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 orders were entered on the docket
on October 14, 2011, and October 2, 2012. The notice of appeal
was filed, at the earliest, on October 1, 2013. Because
Robertson 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
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3