US v. Carlton Bashford, No. 11-6579 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6579 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CARLTON BASHFORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:01-cv-01030-JCC; 1:91-cr-00332-AVB-1) Submitted: July 21, 2011 Decided: July 26, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlton Bashford, Appellant Pro Se. Kondi J. Kleinman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carlton Brashford seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 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 jurisdictional requirement. of 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 December 8, 2010. 20, 2011, or beyond The notice of appeal was filed on April the sixty day appeal period. * Because Brashford 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 facts and * 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 legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
