United States of America v. Ivan Alexander Copeland, a/k/a Bert

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ivan Alexander Copeland seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the
district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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. The notice of appeal was filed on October 19,
2015.1 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 of 3 --

3
dismiss the appeal.2 We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not 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 of 3 --