United States v. Wendy Bens , 460 F. App'x 215 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WENDY BENS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:04-cr-00040-WDQ-2; 1:10-cv-3003-WDQ)
Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wendy Bens, Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wendy Bens seeks to appeal the district court’s order
construing his “motion for dismissal of indictment” as a
successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) and
denying Bens’ motion for reconsideration of a prior order. 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 December 10, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on
August 1, 2011. Because Bens failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3