US v. Sabri Benkahla

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:06-cr-00009-JCC-1,1:10-cv-00030-JCC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998557055].. [10-7534]

Case: 10-7534

Document: 12

Date Filed: 03/31/2011

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7534

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SABRI BENKAHLA,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00009-JCC-1; 1:10-cv-00030-JCC)

Submitted:

March 14, 2011

Decided:

March 31, 2011

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sabri Benkahla, Appellant Pro Se. Gordon D. Kromberg, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Case: 10-7534

Document: 12

Date Filed: 03/31/2011

Page: 2

PER CURIAM:
Sabri Benkahla 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

of

jurisdictional requirement.”

appeal

in

a

civil

“[T]he

case

is

a

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

214 (2007).
The district court’s order of dismissal was entered on
the docket on July 8, 2010.

The notice of appeal was filed, at

the earliest, on October 27, 2010. *

Because Benkahla failed to

file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening

of

dispense

with

*

the

appeal

oral

period,

argument

we

dismiss

because

the

the

appeal.

facts

See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

2

and

We
legal

Case: 10-7534

Document: 12

Date Filed: 03/31/2011

Page: 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3