Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    United States v. Meblin Figueroa, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Meblin Xiomar Figueroa sought to appeal a district court's order construing his Rule 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion and dismissing it. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Figueroa's notice of appeal was not filed within 60 days of the district court's order as required. The district court order was entered on March 30, 2012 but the notice of appeal was not filed until June 11, 2013, over a year later. As the notice of appeal was untimely, the appeals court dismissed the case without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    United States v. Meblin Figueroa, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Meblin Xiomar Figueroa sought to appeal a district court's order construing his Rule 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion and dismissing it. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Figueroa's notice of appeal was not filed within 60 days of the district court's order as required. The district court order was entered on March 30, 2012 but the notice of appeal was not filed until June 11, 2013, over a year later. As the notice of appeal was untimely, the appeals court dismissed the case without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-08-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-6982

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Meblin Xiomar Figueroa sought to appeal a district court's order construing his Rule 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion and dismissing it. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Figueroa's notice of appeal was not filed within 60 days of the district court's order as required. The district court order was entered on March 30, 2012 but the notice of appeal was not filed until June 11, 2013, over a year later. As the notice of appeal was untimely, the appeals court dismissed the case without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views3 pages

    United States v. Meblin Figueroa, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Meblin Xiomar Figueroa sought to appeal a district court's order construing his Rule 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion and dismissing it. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Figueroa's notice of appeal was not filed within 60 days of the district court's order as required. The district court order was entered on March 30, 2012 but the notice of appeal was not filed until June 11, 2013, over a year later. As the notice of appeal was untimely, the appeals court dismissed the case without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-6982

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MEBLIN XIOMAR FIGUEROA,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Norman K. Moon, Senior
    District Judge. (6:05-cr-00024-nkm; 7:07-cv-00329-NKM; 6:11-cv80427-NKM-RSB)

    Submitted:

    August 22, 2013

    Decided:

    August 27, 2013

    Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Meblin Xiomar Figueroa, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis,


    Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorney,
    Roanoke,
    Virginia,
    for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Meblin Xiomar Figueroa seeks to appeal the district
    courts order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a
    successive

    28

    U.S.C.A.

    2255

    dismissing it on that basis.

    (West

    Supp.

    2013)

    motion,

    and

    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 courts 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).
    timely

    filing

    of

    notice

    jurisdictional requirement.

    of

    appeal

    in

    civil

    case

    [T]he
    is

    Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,

    214 (2007).
    The district courts order was entered on the docket
    on March 30, 2012.
    2013. *

    The notice of appeal was filed on June 11,

    Because Figueroa failed to file a timely notice of appeal

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


    dismiss the appeal.

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    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).

    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    this

    and

    argument

    court

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like