NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

BING DU, HELEN GE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2022-1030

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in Nos. 1:19-cv-01020-EGB and 1:19-cv-01021-EGB, Senior 

Judge Eric G. Bruggink.

______________________

Before PROST, REYNA, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

In response to the court’s February 3, 2022 order, the 

United States urges dismissal of this appeal for lack of jurisdiction as untimely. Appellants’ response opposes dismissal. 

On November 23, 2020, the United States Court of Federal Claims entered judgment, dismissing appellants’ consolidated complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

On December 22, 2020, appellants filed a motion seeking 

Case: 22-1030 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 04/01/2022
2 DU v. US

reconsideration. On February 3, 2021, the Court of Federal 

Claims issued an order denying the motion.* 

Appellants state that they did not receive the February 

2021 order until August 23, 2021, when they contacted appellee’s counsel, who then forwarded to appellants a copy 

of the order. On September 8, 2021, appellants submitted 

a “Motion for Relief from Final Orders of Dismissal of 

Plaintiffs’ Refund Claim” at the Court of Federal Claims. 

That submission was returned to appellants unfiled. On 

October 1, 2021, the Court of Federal Claims docketed from 

appellants another submission entitled “Petition for Interlocutory Review to the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit,” which the Court of Federal Claims 

transmitted to this court as a notice of appeal.

To be timely, a notice of appeal must be received by the 

Court of Federal Claims within 60 days after the entry of 

the final judgment being appealed from. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2522; Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). We have held that the 

filing deadline for civil appeals from the Court of Federal 

Claims to this court is a jurisdictional rule imposed by Congress with the intent of denying this court jurisdiction once 

a filing window has closed. See Marandola v. United 

States, 518 F.3d 913, 914–15 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also 

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Thus, this 

court may only consider whether appellants’ notice of appeal was timely and cannot toll based on their personal circumstances. Here, appellants’ notice of appeal was filed 

too late to appeal from either the November 23, 2020 judgment or the February 3, 2021 order denying reconsideration. 

* The decision states that it was filed on February 3, 

2021, but the Court of Federal Claims’ docket shows that it

was entered on February 2, 2021.

Case: 22-1030 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 04/01/2022
DU v. US 3

Appellants argue that the rejected September 2021 

submission should be treated as a motion to reopen the 

time to appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure. However, such motions must be 

filed no later than 180 days after entry of the order sought 

to be appealed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) (allowing trial 

court to reopen the time to appeal when party did not 

timely receive the order being appealed but only if request 

was filed “within 180 days after the judgment or order is 

entered or within 14 days after the moving party receives 

notice . . . of the entry, whichever is earlier”). Here, appellants’ submission was filed outside of that deadline.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed as untimely.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

April 1, 2022

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 22-1030 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 04/01/2022