US v. Susan Rose, No. 10-7350 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7350 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SUSAN TOMIKO ROSE, a/k/a Suzie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00134-WDK-FBS-9; 2:09-cv-00348-MSD) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Before SHEDD Circuit. and AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and December 2, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Susan Tomiko Rose, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Susan Tomiko Rose seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing motion. her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 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). timely filing of a notice of jurisdictional requirement. appeal in a civil [T]he case is a Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court s order was entered on the docket on June 11, 2010. 16, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on September Because Rose failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny certificate of appealability. Rose s motion to expand the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.