UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7559
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINALD ANTHONY FALICE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (3:98-cr-00244-GCM-1)
Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 19, 2012
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald Anthony Falice, Appellant Pro Se. Sidney P. Alexander,
Assistant United States Attorney, Paul Bradford Taylor, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Anthony Falice seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing a motion that attacked aspects of his
federal convictions and imposing sanctions on him for his
repeated filing of malicious lawsuits in connection with his
convictions.
In a civil case to which the United States is a party,
parties are accorded sixty days after the entry of the district
court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 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).
Here, the district court’s order was entered on the docket
on February 24, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed, at
earliest, on October 26, 2011. * Because Falice 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
(1988).
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3