United States v. Sayfuallah ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6625
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ABDUL AL BASEER SAYFUALLAH, a/k/a Bear, a/k/a Randel Noel
Morris,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:07-cr-01354-GRA-1; 8:09-cv-70089-GRA)
Submitted: June 28, 2010 Decided: July 9, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Abdul Al Baseer Sayfuallah, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Abdul Al Baseer Sayfuallah seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010), and the
court’s order denying his first motion to extend the appeal
period. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
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 denying § 2255 relief was
entered on the docket on November 20, 2009. Despite the fact
that Sayfuallah dated his notice of appeal January 18, 2010, we
conclude that the earliest date on which he could have handed it
to prison officials for mailing was March 1, 2010, the date
appearing on a letter he attached to the notice of appeal. See
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Thus, Sayfuallah
filed his notice of appeal outside the sixty-day appeal period.
2
With regard to the court’s order denying his motion to
extend the appeal period, the district court entered its order
on February 2, 2010. Sayfuallah did not file an amended notice
of appeal to include that order. He did, however, mention the
February 2 order in his informal brief, but the informal brief
was filed outside the sixty-day appeal period. See Smith v.
Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 245 (1992) (holding that document filed
within appeal period and containing information required by Fed.
R. App. P. 3(c), is functional equivalent of notice of appeal).
Because Sayfuallah 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
3