Document Info

DocketNumber: 10-7705

Judges: Agee, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 4/6/2011

Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024

  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-7705
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JAMES LARRY BELLAMY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (7:99-cr-00049-F-2; 7:03-cv-00015-F)
    Submitted:   March 31, 2011                 Decided:   April 6, 2011
    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Larry Bellamy, Appellant Pro Se.     John Samuel Bowler,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    James   Larry   Bellamy       seeks    to    appeal   the   district
    court’s order denying relief on his 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 to note an appeal, 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 August 10, 2010.        The notice of appeal was filed on December
    3, 2010. ∗     Because Bellamy 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 deposited in the institution’s                  internal mail
    system 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