UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6410
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IBRAHIMA SARR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:09-cr-00119-MSD-DEM-1; 2:11-cv-00514-MSD)
Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: June 30, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ibrahima Sarr, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Westley Haynie,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ibrahima Sarr seeks to appeal the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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 September 3, 2013. Ibrahima filed a motion for a certificate
of appealability in this court on February 26, 2014. * The motion
was construed as a notice of appeal and transmitted to the
district court. Because Ibrahima failed to file a timely notice
of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
*
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
period, we 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
3