United States v. Joseph Nadir Nelson , 624 F. App'x 136 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7497
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH NADIR NELSON, a/k/a Bam Bam, a/k/a Rockstar Bam,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00350-BR-2; 5:12-cv-00609-BR)
Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015
Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Nadir Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Rudolf
A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Nadir Nelson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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,
the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 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
November 21, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on September
16, 2015. * Because Nelson 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
* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the envelope containing 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
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3