UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6224
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEITH A. DAVIS, a/k/a Black,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior
District Judge. (3:11-cr-00512-MBS-1; 3:13-cv-02591-MBS)
Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 22, 2016
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Keith A. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. John David Rowell, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keith A. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of
the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He also
appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P.
52(b) motion for amended findings and his motion to amend the
Rule 52(b) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction in part and affirm in part.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a party,
the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 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 denying Davis’ Rule 59(e) motion
was entered on the docket on August 26, 2015. The notice of
appeal was filed on February 8, 2016. * Because Davis failed to
file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
*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
reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss his appeal of that
order.
Davis’ appeal is timely as to the district court’s order
denying his motion for amended findings and motion to amend.
However, the motions were themselves untimely because Davis did
not file them in the district court within 28 days of the entry
of judgment on his § 2255 motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b).
We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of these
motions. 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3