United States v. Stephen Satcher , 547 F. App'x 222 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7469
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN D. SATCHER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:00-cr-00105-AW-1; 8:12-cv-01679-AW)
Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 26, 2013
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen D. Satcher, Appellant Pro Se. Odessa Palmer Jackson,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Deborah A. Johnston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stephen D. Satcher seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2013) motion as untimely. 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 order was entered on the docket
on November 29, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on
September 12, 2013. * Because Satcher failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we deny Satcher’s motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
*
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
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