UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7657
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARIUS KEITH RAINEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:98-cr-00093-MOC-1)
Submitted: February 23, 2012 Decided: February 28, 2012
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darius Keith Rainey, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darius Keith Rainey seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion to reduce sentence. 1 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 April 19, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on November
28, 2011. 2 Because Rainey failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
1
The district court construed Rainey’s motion to reduce
sentence as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion and
denied it as successive.
2
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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3