US v. Darryle Robertson, No. 12-7702 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7702 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARRYLE EDWARD ROBERTSON, a/k/a Tiger, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:01-cr-00304-JFM-3) Submitted: January 8, 2013 Decided: January 23, 2013 Before KING, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darryle Edward Robertson, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Stephen Schenning, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Darryle Edward Robertson seeks to appeal the district court s order denying Robertson s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the judgment in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) proceeding. 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 case [T]he is a Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court s order was entered on the docket on October 14, 2011. months later. The notice of appeal was filed eleven 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. 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

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.