Whether a district court's denial of a Rule 59(e) motion can be appealed after the 30-day jurisdictional deadline for filing a notice of appeal has elapsed

in this case. I have attached a copy of the motion for reconsideration that I filed in the Fourth Circuit for your reference. Granting an extension of time would not prejudice the other parties in the case. The other parties have not filed a response to the Motion for Reconsideration. The other parties would have ample time to respond to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari if the Court grants an extension of time. The Supreme Court has a strong interest in hearing this case. The case involves an important legal issue that has far-reaching implications. The Court's decision in this case would have a significant impact on the development of the law in this area. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court grant an extension of time of 90 days from the date that the Fourth Circuit makes a decision on the Motion for Reconsideration to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. CONCLUSION I kindly request the Court to consider this motion for an extension in accordance with the circumstances outlined above. Your favorable consideration of this request would be greatly appreciated. Please do not hesitate to contact me if any additional information is required. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. Dated this )3# day of November, 2023. Respectfully Presented, “Without Prejudice” Nelson L Bruce, Appellant “All Natural Rights Explicitly Reserved and Retained” c/o 144 Pavilion Street, Summerville, South Carolina 29483 email: Ph. 843-437-7901 Page 3|4 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1578 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1578 NELSON L. BRUCE, Plaintiff Appellant, Vv. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a/k/a Bank of America, Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:19-cv-03456-BHH) Submitted: May 5, 2023 Decided: August 31, 2023 Before THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nelson L. Bruce, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are nul binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1578 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Nelson L. Bruce appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(d), (e) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. To appeal an order disposing of a Rule 59 motion, a party must file a notice of appeal within the time prescribed by Fed. R. App. P. 4—here, 30 days. Fed. R. App.. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(4)(B)Gi). “[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 entered its order on April 20, 2022, and Bruce filed his notice of appeal 34 days later, on May 24, 2022. Because Bruce failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are