United States v. Reynolds , 340 F. App'x 916 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8586
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK ANTHONY REYNOLDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Senior
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00088-2; 5:07-cv-00271)
Submitted: July 29, 2009 Decided: August 17, 2009
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Anthony Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Christian
Pilger, IV, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Anthony Reynolds seeks to appeal the district
court’s order affirming the magistrate judge’s denial of bail in
Reynolds’ action filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2009). This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory
and collateral orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S.
541 (1949). We conclude that the district court’s order is an
appealable collateral order. See, e.g., Pagan v. United States,
353 F.3d 1343, 1345-46 & n.4 (11th Cir. 2003) (collecting cases
adopting rule). Although the order is immediately appealable,
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.” Browder v.
Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted); accord Bowles v. Russell,
551 U.S. 205, __, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2366 (2007) (“Today we make
2
clear that the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil
case is a jurisdictional requirement.”).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on July 11, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed, at the
earliest, on November 18, 2008, ∗ more than two months after the
appeal period expired. Because Reynolds 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 the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
∗
See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
3