UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7249

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SANDRA ELLIOTT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:09-cr-00383-BO-1; 5:13-cv-00543-BO)

Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sandra Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. William Miller Gilmore, 

Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Kimberly 

Ann Moore, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sandra Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s 

June 10, 2014 order denying relief on her “motion to dismiss for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction” and “for post-conviction 

relief pursuant to United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th 

Cir. 2011),” and the district court’s July 28, 2014 reminder to 

counsel regarding courtesy copies of documents exceeding twenty 

pages. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction.

Turning first to the June 10 order, 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 June 10, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed no earlier 

than August 20, 2014.1 Because Elliott failed to file a timely 

 1 See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 

276 (1988).
3

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the 

appeal period, we dismiss the appeal as to this order. 

Turning to Elliott’s appeal of the district court’s 

July 28 reminder to counsel, this court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The July 28 reminder 

to counsel is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order.

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, deny Elliott’s motion for coram nobis and for leave to 

supplement the record, and 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 In her informal brief, Elliott also states that she seeks 

to appeal the district court’s February 10, 2014 order denying 

her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and the district court’s 

June 30, 2014 order granting the Government’s motion for an 

extension of time to file a response to Elliott’s motion for 

return of property. We dismiss the appeal as to those orders

for lack of jurisdiction, because the appeal of the denial of 

the § 2255 motion is untimely and the appeal of the order 

granting an extension of time is interlocutory.