
    Daoud A. HAMDALLAH a/k/a David A. Hamdallah, Appellant, v. Diane Trace WARLICK, Esquire, Individually and Warlick & Quigley, P.C., Appellee.
    Civ. App. No. 94-0108.
    District Court, Virgin Islands, Appellate Division, D. St. Croix.
    Jan. 11, 1995.
    Order Denying Reconsideration Feb. 22, 1995.
    Ronald Russell, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, VI, for appellant.
    
      Felice Quigley, Warlick & Quigley, P.C., Christiansted, St. Croix, VI, for appellee.
   ORDER

MOORE, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon motion by appellee to dismiss this appeal and in opposition to appellant’s request to file his brief out of time. Appellant has not responded to the motion. For the reasons stated herein, this Court grants appellee’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The record reflects that appellant appealed the trial court’s Judgment dated June 9, 1994 on July 20, 1994. The Territorial Court distributed the Notice of Entry of Judgment to the parties on June 23, 1994. Appellee contends that pursuant to Territorial Court Rules 65 and 49, in addition to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, appellant was required to demonstrate excusable neglect and seek leave for filing his appeal after the ordinary thirty day deadline under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5).

Territorial Court Rule 49 states that “[ujpon determination of an action by a judge, the judge shall sign the judgment and the judgment shall take effect forthwith, unless otherwise ordered by the court.” Rule 65, entitled “Entry of Judgment,” states that “[f]or good cause shown, the entry of judgment may be stayed; otherwise, judgment shall be entered at the time of the entry of the finding of the judge, provided, however, that upon a satisfactory showing that a substantial question of law or fact ... is involved----” Thus, pursuant to the Rules of the Territorial Court, the Judgment was entered on June 9, 1994.

Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) provides that civil appeals shall be filed within 30 days of judgment or order. An additional thirty-day extension is obtainable provided appellant demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause. Appellant, however, did not file a motion to file the appeal out of time.

“The timely filing of a notice of appeal is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite to the right to appeal.” United States v. Grana, 864 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir.1989). Based on this Court’s observation that appellant failed to timely file his notice of appeal or the requisite motion demonstrating excusable neglect or good cause, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the above-captioned appeal. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

THAT the above-captioned appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively close this file.

ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

This matter is before the Court upon appellant’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s dismissal of the above-captioned appeal on January 9, 1995. Dismissal was based on this Court’s lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 4(a).

Appellant states that his appeal was timely pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 58, which requires that every judgment be set forth on a separate document, which was not satisfied by the trial court’s judgment dated June 9, 1994. He argues that this defect was cured on June 23, 1994, which must be considered the date of the judgment for appeal purposes.

Appellees oppose the motion to reconsider, noting the trial court’s compliance with both the Territorial Court Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons stated herein, we reject all of appellant’s requests, namely, to vacate the dismissal, reinstate the appeal, and file the appeal out of time.

The Territorial Court’s Judgment dated June 9, 1994 satisfied the technical requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 58, by being presented on a separate document. Appellant mistakenly refers to cases where, unlike here, a written judgment was not created by the trial court. Accordingly, the time to file the notice of appeal began to run on June 9, 1994, the date the judgment was entered.

Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until July 20,1994, clearly outside the thirty-day filing deadline of Fed.R.App.P. 4(a). No motion to file out of time was filed with this Court, which would have given appellant an opportunity to demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause. Thus, this Court is without authority to reinstate the appeal. Upon reconsideration of this Court’s Order of Dismissal dated January 9, 1995, and the Court being advised of the premises accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

THAT appellant’s motion to vacate the order of dismissal and reinstate appeal is DENIED. 
      
      . Appellant’s Notice of Appeal is dated July 20, 1993, a date that is inconsistent with the record. The Notice refers to the trial court’s Judgment dated June 23, 1994. For purposes of this discussion, the Court will take judicial notice that the Notice was filed on July 20, 1994.
     
      
      . Appellee also refers to Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(6), which permits the Court to reopen the time for appeal, upon motion filed within 180 days of entry or 7 days of receipt of notice from the clerk, if the movant did not receive such notice within 21 days of the actual entry. Because nothing in the record indicates that appellant did not receive notice within 21 days, Rule 4(a)(6) is inapplicable.
      Appellee also contends that, after two previous extensions, appellant failed to file his brief within the time allotted by the Court. Because we find that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal, we do not reach the merits of this argument.
     
      
      . Even if this Court were to liberally construe appellant's error and find that the mistake was a product of excusable neglect, Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5) requires that such finding be premised "upon motion filed not later than 30 days after the expiration of the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a)."
     
      
      . Appellant also submits that his response to appellees' motion to dismiss was timely filed on January 12, 1995. This Court rejects appellant’s suggestion that this Court conveniently disregard the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure in construing the deadline within which to file a response. The District Court’s Local Rule of Civil Procedure 76.1 states that practice in the appellate division should “be governed by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure ... and such local rules as experience determines to be necessary and appropriate". Appellant's attempt to pick and choose rules that support his position cannot be condoned nor overlooked. Even without appellant’s misapplication of this Court's procedural rules, appellant has failed to present any viable theory which authorizes this Court to consider his appeal.
     
      
      . We have already fully explained how the judgment complies with Terr.Ct.R. 49 and 65.
     