US v. Joseph Nadir Nelson


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cr-00350-BR-2,5:12-cv-00609-BR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999721065]. Mailed to: Joseph Nelson. [15-7497]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-7497 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/18/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7497 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOSEPH NADIR NELSON, a/k/a Bam Bam, a/k/a Rockstar Bam, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:10-cr-00350-BR-2; 5:12-cv-00609-BR) Submitted: December 15, 2015 Before GREGORY Circuit Judge. and FLOYD, Decided: Circuit Judges, December 18, 2015 and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Nadir Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-7497 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/18/2015 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Joseph Nadir Nelson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying We dismiss the relief appeal on his for 28 lack U.S.C. of § 2255 (2012) jurisdiction motion. 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 November 21, 2012. 16, 2015. * The notice of appeal was filed on September Because Nelson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the envelope containing 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, 276 (1988). 2 Appeal: 15-7497 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/18/2015 Pg: 3 of 3 in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?