US v. Marjil Bergara

Filing 920090828

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6427 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARJIL LEE BERGARA, a/k/a Michael Bergara, a/k/a Michael Begera, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (1:05-cr-00053-jpj-mfu-1; 1:08-cv-80041-jpj-mfu) Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 28, 2009 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marjil Lee Bergara, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marjil Lee Bergara seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2009) 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). timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case "[T]he is a jurisdictional requirement." 214 (2007). Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, The district court's order was entered on the docket on December 17, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on February 27, 2009. * Because Bergara failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Bergara's motion to supplement his informal brief, and dismiss For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the certificate of service with 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, 267 (1988). 2 * the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?