UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7935
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TADASHI DEMETRIUS KEYES, a/k/a Calico,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:03-cr-00008-NKM-RSB-4)
Submitted: April 10, 2014 Decided: April 28, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tadashi Demetrius Keyes, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tadashi Demetrius Keyes seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion, and its subsequent orders denying his motions filed
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b).
We dismiss the appeal as untimely as to the district court’s
orders dismissing Keyes’s § 2255 motion and denying his first
Rule 59(e) motion.
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 dismissing Keyes’s § 2255
motion was entered on the docket on March 20, 2013. Keyes’s
first motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) was filed
within twenty-eight days of this order. The district court’s
order denying this motion for reconsideration was entered on the
docket on June 20, 2013. Although Keyes filed another motion
for reconsideration on July 8, 2013, this motion did not toll
2
the period for appealing the court’s March 20, 2013 order
because it was not filed within twenty-eight days of the entry
of that order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(4)(A)(iv). The period for filing a notice of appeal of the
March 20, 2013 order expired on August 19, 2013, sixty days
after the entry of the order denying reconsideration on June 20,
2013. Keyes did not file a notice of appeal until November 22,
2013.
The district court denied the July 8, 2013 Rule 59(e)
motion in an order entered on August 7, 2013. The period for
filing a notice of appeal of the June 20, 2013 order expired on
October 9, 2013, sixty days after the entry of the order denying
reconsideration. The notice of appeal was thus untimely as to
the June 20, 2013 order denying Keyes’s first motion for
reconsideration. Because Keyes’s failed to file a timely notice
of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we dismiss the appeal as to the March 20, 2013, and June
20, 2013 orders.
The district court’s orders denying Keyes’s second
Rule 59(e) motion and Rule 60(b)(4) motion are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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)
3
(2012). 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 Keyes 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 materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4