Case: 19-1487 Document: 29 Page: 1 Filed: 01/11/2021
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CHRISTOPHER P. LANGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2019-1487
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:17-cv-01446-EDK, Judge Elaine Kaplan.
______________________
Decided: January 11, 2021
______________________
CHRISTOPHER P. LANGAN, Goshen, NY, pro se.
DAVID MICHAEL KERR, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
JEFFREY B. CLARK, LISA LEFANTE DONAHUE, ROBERT
EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.
______________________
Before DYK, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
Case: 19-1487 Document: 29 Page: 2 Filed: 01/11/2021
2 LANGAN v. UNITED STATES
PER CURIAM.
Christopher P. Langan appeals a decision of the United
States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”). Because
this appeal is untimely, we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Langan served with the Air Force from 2003 to
2011. After several disciplinary actions not relevant here,
Mr. Langan submitted an application for voluntary sepa-
ration with pay (“VSP”) on March 24, 2011. His application
was approved, and he signed a letter of intent to participate
in VSP on April 7, 2011. Mr. Langan alleges that he is
owed money by the government as a result of miscalcula-
tions of the amount due under the VSP program, tax over-
payments, and unpaid military pay. On October 2, 2017,
Mr. Langan filed a complaint in the Claims Court. The
Claims Court rejected Mr. Langan’s various claims for
monetary and injunctive relief, with the exception of an
award of $2.72. Mr. Langan sought to appeal to this court.
DISCUSSION
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure pro-
vides that when the United States is a party to a case, a
notice of appeal must be filed “within 60 days after entry of
the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(1)(B)(i); see also
28 U.S.C. § 2107(b). “If a party files
a notice of appeal after the court announces or enters a
judgment,” but before the court rules on a timely filed mo-
tion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the party’s notice of ap-
peal “becomes effective . . . when the order disposing of the
last such remaining motion is entered.” Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), 4(a)(4)(B)(i). “A party intending to chal-
lenge an order disposing of any [such] motion . . . or a judg-
ment’s alteration or amendment upon such a motion, must
file a notice of appeal, or an amended notice of appeal . . .
within the time prescribed by this Rule . . . .” Fed. R. App.
Case: 19-1487 Document: 29 Page: 3 Filed: 01/11/2021
LANGAN v. UNITED STATES
3
P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). As recognized in Rule 4(a) of the rules of
this court, we “cannot waive or extend the statutory dead-
lines for the filing of a notice of appeal or petition for re-
view.” Fed. Cir. R. 4(a); see also Bowles v. Russell,
551 U.S.
205, 214 (2007) (holding that “the timely filing of a notice
of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement” that
does not admit of equitable exceptions).
The Claims Court filed its first judgment in this case
on November 28, 2018. On January 28, 2019, Mr. Langan
filed a notice of appeal from this judgment. The Claims
Court subsequently granted Mr. Langan’s post-judgment
motion and vacated the judgment on June 11, 2019.
The Claims Court then entered a new judgment on
June 13, 2019. On July 11, 2019, Mr. Langan sought re-
consideration of the new judgment under Rule 59(a), which
the Claims Court denied on September 12, 2019. Pursuant
to Rule 4, Mr. Langan then had 60 days in which to file a
new or amended notice of appeal from the July 2019 judg-
ment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B)(i)–(ii).
Mr. Langan’s notice of appeal of the November 2018
judgment was ineffective because that judgment was va-
cated. See, e.g., Husky Ventures, Inc. v. B55 Invs., Ltd.,
911
F.3d 1000, 1010 (10th Cir. 2018) (“When an appellant chal-
lenges an order ruling on a motion governed by Appellate
Rule 4(a)(4)(B)(ii), a new or amended notice of appeal is
necessary . . . .”); Sorensen v. City of New York,
413 F.3d
292, 296 & n.2 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that Rule
4(a)(4)(B)(ii) requires a new or amended notice of appeal
when a judgment is “altered upon disposition of a posttrial
motion”). Mr. Langan never filed any notice of appeal of
the June 2019 judgment as required by Rule 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).
Because Mr. Langan’s appeal is untimely, and we cannot
waive or extend the deadline to file a notice of appeal under
Rule 4, we must dismiss.
DISMISSED
Case: 19-1487 Document: 29 Page: 4 Filed: 01/11/2021
4 LANGAN v. UNITED STATES
COSTS
No costs.
