US v. Joel Tadlock

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:05-cr-00670-TLW-1,4:10-cv-70278-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998868354]. Mailed to: Joel Tadlock. [12-6047]

Appeal: 12-6047

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/05/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6047

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOEL WAYNE TADLOCK,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:05-cr-00670-TLW-1; 4:10-cv-70278-TLW)

Submitted:

May 31, 2012

Decided:

June 5, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joel Wayne Tadlock, Appellant Pro Se.
Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6047

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/05/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Joel

Wayne

Tadlock

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011)
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence and his
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment.
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

“[T]he

case

is

a

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

214 (2007).
The

district

court’s

order

denying

Tadlock’s

Rule

59(e) motion was entered on the docket on October 12, 2011.
Tadlock’s motion for a certificate of appealability, which was
construed as his notice of appeal, was filed on December 23,
2011. *

Because Tadlock failed to file a timely notice of appeal

*

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the motion is the earliest date it could have been
(Continued)
2

Appeal: 12-6047

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/05/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

the

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

3