Case ID: f-appx_460/html/0215-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wendy BENS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-7022.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 20, 2011.
    Decided: Dec. 23, 2011.
    Wendy Bens, Appellant Pro Se. John Walter Sippel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, James G. Warwick, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Wendy Bens seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his “motion for dismissal of indictment” as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) and denying Bens’ motion for reconsideration of a prior order. 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. RApp. 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on December 10, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on August 1, 2011. Because Bens failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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.