United States v. Rose , 403 F. App'x 798 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-7350
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    SUSAN TOMIKO ROSE, a/k/a Suzie,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.      Mark S. Davis, District
    Judge. (1:05-cr-00134-WDK-FBS-9; 2:09-cv-00348-MSD)
    Submitted:   November 18, 2010               Decided:   December 2, 2010
    Before SHEDD   and    AGEE,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
    Circuit.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Susan Tomiko Rose, Appellant Pro Se.    Laura Marie Everhart,
    Assistant  United States   Attorney, Norfolk,  Virginia,  for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Susan Tomiko Rose seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order    dismissing      her    
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
            (West    Supp.    2010)
    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 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 June 11, 2010.            The notice of appeal was filed on September
    16, 2010.     Because Rose failed to file a timely notice of appeal
    or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
    dismiss    the     appeal.       We     deny      Rose’s    motion      to    expand    the
    certificate of appealability.                  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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-7350

Citation Numbers: 403 F. App'x 798

Filed Date: 12/2/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014