United States v. Waters ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7877
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    DENNIS MERRIMON WATERS,
    Defendant – Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.  Lacy H. Thornburg,
    District Judge. (1:01-cr-00048-LHT-10)
    Submitted:    January 14, 2010              Decided:   January 21, 2010
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dennis Merrimon Waters, Appellant Pro Se.    Amy Elizabeth Ray,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Dennis Merrimon Waters seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order denying his motion seeking relief under Fed. R.
    Civ. P. 60(b).     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).       This
    appeal period is mandatory and jurisdictional.       See Bowles v.
    Russell, 
    551 U.S. 205
     (2007).
    The district court’s order was entered on the docket
    on May 18, 2009.     The notice of appeal was filed on September
    28, 2009. *   Because Waters 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 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
    in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-7877

Judges: Motz, Gregory, Shedd

Filed Date: 1/21/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024