United States v. Glaze , 401 F. App'x 815 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6978
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHERIDAN A. GLAZE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00073-LO-1; 1:09-cv-00097-LO)
Submitted: October 13, 2010 Decided: November 12, 2010
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sheridan A. Glaze, Appellant Pro Se. Edmund P. Power, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sheridan Glaze seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion
and requests immediate release from custody pending her appeal.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the
notice of appeal was not timely filed and, accordingly, deny
Glaze’s motion to stay her sentence.
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 June 11, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed at the
earliest on July 6, 2010. * Because Glaze failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
*
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
appeal period, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Consequently, we deny Glaze’s motion to stay her sentence
pending 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