UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7626
JEFFREY A. PLEASANT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WENDELL W. PIXLEY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:16-cv-00416-REP-RCY)
Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 4, 2017
Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district court’s
order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition as a 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it as successive.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because
Pleasant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.
In civil actions in which the federal government is not a
party, parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the
district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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 15, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on November
10, 2016. Although the district court erroneously informed
Pleasant that he had 60 days to appeal, the jurisdictional
nature of the filing requirement and Pleasant’s failure to file
a timely notice of appeal deprive this court of jurisdiction.
See id. at 214 (“[T]his Court has no authority to create
equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements.”).
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3