Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07739/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07739-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7739

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

IVAN ALEXANDER COPELAND, a/k/a Bert,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (2:13-cr-00091-RGD-DEM-1; 2:14-cv-00539-RGD)

Submitted: March 4, 2016 Decided: March 17, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ivan Alexander Copeland, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin L. Hatch, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7739 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/17/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Ivan Alexander Copeland seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the 

district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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 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 

March 30, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on October 19, 

2015.1 Because Copeland failed to file a timely notice of appeal 

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

 1 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).

Appeal: 15-7739 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/17/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

dismiss the appeal.2 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

 2 Alternatively, to the extent that Copeland intended to 

appeal his criminal judgment entered on December 3, 2013 rather 

than the district court’s March 30, 2015 order, we dismiss the 

appeal as inordinately late. See United States v. Mitchell, 518 

F.3d 740, 744, 750 (10th Cir. 2008) (court may enforce criminal 

appeal period sua sponte when delay has been inordinate).

Appeal: 15-7739 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/17/2016 Pg: 3 of 3