UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7328
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEAN BLACKWOOD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:09-cr-00135-RDB-1; 1:10-cv-01306-RDB; 1:10-cv-01645-RDB;
1:10-cv-3609-RDB)
Submitted: February 16, 2012 Decided: March 5, 2012
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dean Blackwood, Appellant Pro Se. Mushtaq Zakir Gunja, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dean Blackwood seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying his motions for post-conviction relief under 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011). 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 orders were entered on the docket
on December 9, 2010, and January 7, 2011. The notice of appeal
was filed on September 29, 2011.* Because Blackwood failed to
file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We also
*
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
deny Blackwood’s pending motions seeking the release of
documents from the district court. 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