US v. Jerome Robertson, No. 11-7036 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7036 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEROME LEROY ROBERTSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:06-cr-00085-RAJ-JEB-2) Submitted: October 6, 2011 Decided: October 19, 2011 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome Leroy Robertson, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerome Leroy Robertson seeks to appeal the district court s order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West Supp. 2011) 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 to a civil action, 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). [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 April 4, 2011. The notice earliest on July 31, 2011. * of appeal was filed at the Because Robertson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. oral argument because the facts * and legal We dispense with contentions are 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, 276 (1988). 2 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 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.
