US v. Cesar Sierro-Pineda

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--terminating Motion to extend filing time [999551385-2] Originating case number: 5:11-cr-00022-RLV-1,5:14-cv-00063-RLV. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999606451]. Mailed to: Sierra-Pineda. [15-6121]

Appeal: 15-6121

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6121

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CESAR SIERRO-PINEDA, a/k/a Desiderio Ramirez Duarte, a/k/a
Desiderio Pineda Duarte,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge.
(5:11-cr-00022-RLV-1; 5:14-cv-00063RLV)

Submitted:

June 18, 2015

Decided:

June 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cesar Sierro-Pineda, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6121

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Cesar Sierro-Pineda seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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 60 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).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
October 14, 2014.
2015. *

The notice of appeal was filed on January 16,

Because Sierro-Pineda failed to file a timely notice of

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

We grant Sierro-Pineda’s motion

*

For the purpose 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). Although Sierro-Pineda first dated his notice of appeal
December 14, 2014, he changed the date to January 16, 2015, and
initialed the change.
Under either date, the notice of appeal
is untimely filed.

2

Appeal: 15-6121

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/22/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

to extend the filing time for the informal opening brief and
accept

the

tendered

brief.

We

dispense

with

oral

argument

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

DISMISSED

3