Opinion
No. 15-7669
01-20-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RENE ELLIS, a/k/a Money, a/k/a Nut, Defendant - Appellant.
Rene Ellis, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorneys, Nancy Chastain Wicker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:01-cr-01024-CMC-7; 3:14-cv-03607-CMC) Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rene Ellis, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorneys, Nancy Chastain Wicker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Rene Ellis seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive. 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 60 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 September 11, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on September 25, 2015. Because Ellis 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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). --------
DISMISSED