Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07497/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07497-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Nadir Nelson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7497

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JOSEPH NADIR NELSON, a/k/a Bam Bam, a/k/a Rockstar Bam, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior 

District Judge. (5:10-cr-00350-BR-2; 5:12-cv-00609-BR) 

Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Joseph Nadir Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Rudolf 

A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 15-7497 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/18/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Joseph Nadir Nelson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on 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 

November 21, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on September 

16, 2015.* Because Nelson 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 

 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the envelope containing 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, 276 (1988). 

Appeal: 15-7497 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/18/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7497 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/18/2015 Pg: 3 of 3