US v. Joseph Nadir Nelson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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