Gilead Mutava v. United States

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GILEAD MUTAVA,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2026-1272
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-01504-EHM, Judge Edward H. Meyers.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
On September 23, 2025, the United States Court of
Federal Claims entered judgment dismissing Gilead Mu-
tava’s complaint. The Court of Federal Claims received his
notice of appeal from that judgment on December 16, 2025.
Because it appeared the appeal was untimely, the court di-
rected the parties to show cause whether the appeal should
be dismissed. Mr. Mutava responds and files motions for
various relief. The United States moves for leave to file a
Case: 26-1272 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

MUTAVA v. US 2
motion to dismiss. ECF No. 17. Mr. Mutava has not re-
sponded to the motion for leave.
A party seeking appellate review must comply with
“linked jurisdictional” requirements governing the content
and timing of a notice of appeal. Becker v. Montgomery,
532 U.S. 757, 765 (2001). Rule 3(c) of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure requires that a notice of appeal must
designate the judgment from which the appeal is taken.
Sections 2522 and 2107(b) of title 28 of the U.S. Code fur-
ther require such notice of appeal be received by the Court
of Federal Claims within 60 days of the entry of the ap-
pealed judgment. See Marandola v. United States, 518
F.3d 913, 914 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Henderson v.
Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 438–39 (2011); cf. Fed. R. App.
P. 26(b)(1).
Mr. Mutava has identified no submission satisfying
these requirements. His December 2025 appeal is clearly
untimely. And his submissions of attached screenshots of
earlier purported emails to this court do not give timely,
sufficient notice of his intent to appeal the judgment. Only
two of the emails appear to be dated within the filing dead-
line period. The first makes only passing reference to the
Court of Federal Claims and does not identify a case num-
ber, let alone a judgment. ECF No. 12-2 at 1–2. The other
also does not identify a judgment; mostly addresses health
issues and concerns about non-delivery notices in other
cases; and states that the case is “being processed whereas
[he is] officially waiting for a judicial answer.” ECF No. 12-
2 at 7. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude
Mr. Mutava has not filed a timely notice of appeal.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) ECF No. 17 is accepted for filing.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.
Case: 26-1272 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

MUTAVA v. US 3
(3) All pending motions are denied.
(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.
July 23, 2026
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 26-1272 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 07/23/2026

-- 3 of 3 --