United States v. April Garrett

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. April Garrett, 487 F. App'x 99 (4th Cir. 2012)

United States v. April Garrett

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7196

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

APRIL NICOLE GARRETT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:07-cr-01463-HMH-1; 7:12-cv-00966-HMH)

Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 6, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

April Nicole Garrett, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

April Nicole Garrett seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on her

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West

Supp. 2012) 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, 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 April 12, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed, at the

earliest, on July 11, 2012. Because Garrett 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

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished