US v. Charles Louther, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cv-00164-NCT-PTS. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998838565]. Mailed to: Charles E. Louther Jr. [11-2244]

Appeal: 11-2244

Document: 13

Date Filed: 04/24/2012

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2244
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHARLES E. LOUTHER, JR.,
Claimant – Appellant,
and
CURRENCY,
$41,939.00
19UYA42611A022790,

IN

U.S.;

2001

ACURA

CL,

VIN

Defendants,
SHAKITA LOUTHER; CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE, INC.,
Claimants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00164-NCT-PTS)
Submitted:

April 19, 2012

Decided:

April 24, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.

Appeal: 11-2244

Document: 13

Date Filed: 04/24/2012

Page: 2 of 4

Charles E. Louther, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Lynne P. Klauer,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-2244

Document: 13

Date Filed: 04/24/2012

Page: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Charles E. Louther, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s

orders

dismissing

his

answer

and

claim

for

lack

of

standing and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
on appeal.

He also seeks to challenge the court’s decree and

judgment of forfeiture.

We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

Louther filed a timely notice of appeal designating
only the court’s order denying leave to proceed IFP on appeal as
the order he sought to appeal.

We confine our review to the

issues raised in the Appellant’s brief.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Because Louther’s informal brief does not challenge the basis
for

the

district

court’s

appellate review of this

disposition,
order.

Louther

has

forfeited

Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s order denying IFP status.
Turning to the remaining order and judgment Louther
seeks to appeal, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

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).
3

Appeal: 11-2244

Document: 13

Date Filed: 04/24/2012

Page: 4 of 4

The district court’s order dismissing Louther’s answer
and claim for lack of standing was entered on the docket on
September 7, 2011, and the decree and judgment of forfeiture was
entered on the docket on October 13, 2011.
was filed on February 13, 2012.*

The notice of appeal

Because Louther failed to file

a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, we dismiss this portion of the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

*

Louther failed to notice an appeal of the district court’s
underlying substantive orders. While we may construe Louther’s
informal brief on appeal as “the functional equivalent” of a
notice of appeal, Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992),
Louther failed to file his brief within the sixty-day appeal
period.

4