US v. Andre Saint-Jean

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 5:06-cr-00038-gec-mfu-7, 5:09-cv-80181-gec-mfu. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998527738] [10-7473]

Case: 10-7473

Document: 7

Date Filed: 02/18/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7473

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANDRE FERNE SAINT-JEAN, a/k/a Dre,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (5:06-cr-00038-gec-mfu-7)

Submitted:

February 10, 2011

Decided:

February 18, 2011

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andre Ferne Saint-Jean, Appellant Pro Se.
Joseph W. H. Mott,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Case: 10-7473

Document: 7

Date Filed: 02/18/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM:
Andre Ferne Saint-Jean seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on 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).
timely

filing

of

a

notice

jurisdictional requirement.”

of

appeal

in

a

civil

case

“[T]he
is

a

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,

214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket
on February 17, 2010.

The notice of appeal was filed on October

12, 2010. ∗ Because Saint-Jean 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
∗

For the purposes 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).

2

Case: 10-7473

Document: 7

Date Filed: 02/18/2011

Page: 3

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

3