UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6119
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CRAIG PHILLIPS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-6285
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CRAIG PHILLIPS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:12-cr-00037-RBS-DEM-2; 2:13-cv-00501-RBS)
Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 3, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
No. 14-6119, dismissed; No. 14-6285, affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Craig Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Randy Carl Stoker, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Craig Phillips seeks to
challenge the order of judgment denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion (No. 14-6119), and a postjudgment order ruling on
his motion to clarify (No. 14-6285). We dismiss the appeal in
No. 14-6119 for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of
appeal was not timely filed, and affirm the contested order in
No. 14-6285.
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 judgment was entered on the
docket on September 27, 2013, and the notice of appeal was filed
on December 30, 2013. * Phillips’ untimely Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
*
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).
3
motion to alter or amend did not “defer the time for filing an
appeal.” Panhorst v. United States, 241 F.3d 367, 370 (4th Cir.
2001); see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). Because Phillips failed to
file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period, we lack jurisdiction to review
the judgment and dismiss the appeal in No. 14-6119.
In No. 14-6285, Phillips appeals the district court’s
denial of his motion to clarify a postjudgment order. On
appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Phillips’
informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
court’s disposition, Phillips has forfeited appellate review of
this order, and we therefore affirm it.
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.
No. 14-6119, DISMISSED;
No. 14-6285, AFFIRMED
4