USCA4 Appeal: 25-1931 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/22/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1931

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

XUAN PENG,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (8:25-cv-01210-LKG)

Submitted: December 18, 2025 Decided: December 22, 2025

Before NIEMEYER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Xuan Peng, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1931 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/22/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Xuan Peng seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing her notice of removal

as a

complaint and dismissing the action as frivolous. We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The district court issued its order on June 11, 2025. Because the court did not enter

its judgment on a separate document, the judgment is deemed entered 150 days later—i.e.,

on November 8, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c)(2)(B). Prior to the judgment’s entry, on

July 11, Peng timely filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.

The court has not ruled on that motion. Weeks later, on August 9, Peng noted this appeal.

Where, as here, a notice of appeal is filed while a Rule 59(e) motion is pending, the

notice of appeal becomes effective only once the Rule 59(e) motion is resolved. Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i). Because the district court has not ruled on Peng’s Rule 59(e) motion,

the notice of appeal is not yet effective. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction and remand to the district court for consideration of Peng’s Rule 59(e) motion.

We dispense with oral 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 AND REMANDED

2