United States v. Kenneth Loftin , 590 F. App'x 269 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7496
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNETH ROBERT LOFTIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:05-cr-00239-H-1; 5:12-cv-00523-H)
Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Robert Loftin, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Robert Loftin seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 orders were entered on the docket
on May 16, 2013, and July 11, 2013, respectively. The notice of
appeal was filed, at the earliest, on September 10, 2013. *
Because Loftin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
*
Loftin stated on his notice of appeal that he submitted it
on September 10, 2013. We presume that this is the earliest
date it could have been delivered to prison officials for
mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
2
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3