US v. Albert Burgess, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00017-GCM-DLH-1,1:12-cv-00375-GCM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999705794]. Mailed to: Burgess. [15-7235]

Appeal: 15-7235

Doc: 8

Filed: 11/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7235

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALBERT CHARLES BURGESS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00017-GCM-DLH-1; 1:12-cv-00375GCM)

Submitted:

November 19, 2015

Decided:

November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Amy Elizabeth
Ray,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Asheville,
North
Carolina, Melissa
Louise
Rikard,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7235

Doc: 8

Filed: 11/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s
motion.

order

denying

relief

on

his

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255

(2012)

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
February 26, 2015.
2015. *

The notice of appeal was filed on August 3,

Because Burgess failed to file a timely notice of appeal

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

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

*

adequately

presented

in

the

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. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266, 276 (1988).

2

Appeal: 15-7235

Doc: 8

materials

before

Filed: 11/24/2015

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3