US v. Ivan Copeland

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cr-00091-RGD-DEM-1,2:14-cv-00539-RGD. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999776311]. Mailed to: Ivan Copeland. [15-7739]

Appeal: 15-7739

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/17/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7739

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IVAN ALEXANDER COPELAND, a/k/a Bert,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:13-cr-00091-RGD-DEM-1; 2:14-cv-00539-RGD)

Submitted:

March 4, 2016

Decided:

March 17, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ivan Alexander Copeland, Appellant Pro Se.
Benjamin L. Hatch,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Norfolk,
Virginia,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7739

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/17/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ivan
court’s

Alexander

order

Copeland

denying
order

his

seeks

motion

denying

to

for

his

appeal

the

district

reconsideration

28

U.S.C.

of

§ 2255

the

district

court’s

(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
March 30, 2015.
2015. 1

The notice of appeal was filed on October 19,

Because Copeland failed to file a timely notice of appeal

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

1

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).

2

Appeal: 15-7739

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/17/2016

dismiss the appeal. 2
facts

and

materials

legal
before

Pg: 3 of 3

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

2

Alternatively, to the extent that Copeland intended to
appeal his criminal judgment entered on December 3, 2013 rather
than the district court’s March 30, 2015 order, we dismiss the
appeal as inordinately late. See United States v. Mitchell, 518
F.3d 740, 744, 750 (10th Cir. 2008) (court may enforce criminal
appeal period sua sponte when delay has been inordinate).

3