Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06697/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06697-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lakendrick Fobbs
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6697

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LAKENDRICK FOBBS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (5:03-cr-00310-H-1; 5:07-cv-00115-H)

Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 3, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lakendrick Fobbs, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6697 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/03/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Lakendrick Fobbs seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 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 sixty 

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 February 2, 2010. The notice of appeal is considered to have 

been filed on April 19, 2010.*

 * 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). 

 Because Fobbs 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 

Appeal: 10-6697 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/03/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6697 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/03/2010 Pg: 3 of 3