Case: 22-2137 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 10/21/2022

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RICARDO J. CALDERON LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2022-2137 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:20-cv-00133-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink. ______________________

ON MOTION ______________________

Before DYK, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER The United States moves to waive the requirements of Federal Circuit Rule 27(f) and to dismiss for lack of juris- diction. Ricardo J. Calderon Lopez opposes the motion and moves to “Set as Aside & reverse unsupported order & judgement . . . as-clearly erroneous . . . expediting the ap- pellant-reinstatement of Gov. benefits,” ECF No. 9 at 4. Case: 22-2137 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 10/21/2022

2 LOPEZ v. US

Mr. Lopez filed the present action at the United States Court of Federal Claims, asserting claims under the Fed- eral Tort Claims Act. The court entered judgment on July 10, 2020, dismissing the action, agreeing with the gov- ernment that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. More than two years later, on August 9, 2022, the Court of Federal Claims received a submission from Mr. Lopez en- titled “Motion to Intervene,” which the court returned to him as unfiled on August 11, 2022. The next day, Mr. Lopez filed a notice of appeal from a judgment purportedly entered on “08/12/2022.” We agree with the government that we do not have ju- risdiction to hear any appeal from the Court of Federal Claims’ July 10, 2020, judgment because an appeal from that judgment would be untimely. To be timely, a notice of appeal must be received by the Court of Federal Claims within 60 days of the entry of judgment, see 28 U.S.C. § 2522; 28 U.S.C. § 2107. The timely filing of a notice of appeal from the Court of Federal Claims to this court is a jurisdictional requirement that is not subject to equitable exception. See Marandola v. United States, 518 F.3d 913, 914 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, Mr. Lopez’s notice of appeal was filed over two years after entry of the July 10, 2020, judgment, which was clearly untimely. Mr. Lopez’s brief also does not clearly challenge the Au- gust 11, 2022, order returning his “Motion to Intervene” unfiled. In any event, it was well within the Court of Fed- eral Claims’ authority to refuse to accept Mr. Lopez’s sub- mission filed long after his case had been closed. See Davis v. Adler, 765 F. App’x 400, 401 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) and Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007)); Gill v. Wells, 610 F. App’x 809, 812 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing Smith v. Psychiatric Sols., Inc., 750 F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014)). Nor does Mr. Lopez assert any other non- frivolous issues for appeal. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 307–08 (1989); cf. 28 U.S.C. Case: 22-2137 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 10/21/2022

LOPEZ v. US 3

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (“[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the . . . appeal is friv- olous[.]”). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion to dismiss is granted. The case is dis- missed. (2) Any other pending motion is denied as moot. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

October 21, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: October 21, 2022