Court Opinion

ID: 4689889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-05-25 19:00:55.33044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:56.911588
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 21-6252

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

JUSTIN P. STAHMER,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:17-cr-00123-RAJ-LRL-1; 2:19-cv-
00270-RAJ)

Submitted: May 20, 2021                                           Decided: May 25, 2021

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Justin P. Stahmer, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Justin P. Stahmer seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b) motion to reconsider the order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 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 in a civil case, 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 entered its order on October 14, 2020. Stahmer filed the notice of

appeal on January 18, 2021. * Because Stahmer 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 in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED

       *
        For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of
appeal is the earliest date Stahmer could have delivered the notice to prison officials for
mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

                                             2