UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7036
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEROME LEROY ROBERTSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson,
District Judge. (4:06-cr-00085-RAJ-JEB-2)
Submitted: October 6, 2011 Decided: October 19, 2011
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerome Leroy Robertson, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Leroy Robertson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2011) 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 to a civil action, 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 April 4, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed at the
earliest on July 31, 2011. * Because Robertson failed to file a
timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
*
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,
276 (1988).
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3