United States of America v. Joseph R. Beilharz

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6465
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH R. BEILHARZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00105-LMB-1; 1:11-cv-
01222-LMB)
Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph R. Beilharz, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Joseph R. Beilharz seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing with
prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We dismiss the appeal as untimely and
duplicative.
“[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). Where, as here, 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).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on June 12, 2012. The notice
of appeal was filed no earlier than March 28, 2019, and is duplicative of a prior appeal of
the same order. United States v. Beilharz, 488 F. App’x 732 (4th Cir. 2012) (No. 12-
7254) (denying certificate of appealability and dismissing appeal). Because Beilharz
failed to file the notice of appeal within the applicable appeal period, and the appeal itself
is duplicative, we dismiss the appeal. 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 of 2 --