UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7702
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRYLE EDWARD ROBERTSON, a/k/a Tiger,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:01-cr-00304-JFM-3)
Submitted: January 8, 2013 Decided: January 23, 2013
Before KING, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darryle Edward Robertson, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis
Purcell, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Stephen
Schenning, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darryle Edward Robertson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying Robertson’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion
for relief from the judgment in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2012) proceeding. 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 October 14, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed eleven
months later. 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 adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2