United States v. Bostic

487 F. App'x 99
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 6, 2012
DocketNo. 12-7434
StatusPublished

This text of 487 F. App'x 99 (United States v. Bostic) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Bostic, 487 F. App'x 99 (4th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Bostic seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his “Motion to Rectify the Record.” 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 sixty 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April 3, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on August 19, 2012.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Houston v. Lack
487 U.S. 266 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Bowles v. Russell
551 U.S. 205 (Supreme Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
487 F. App'x 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bostic-ca4-2012.