context: The District Court likewise did not err in dismissing Express' Rule 60 motion. It is well established that Rule 60 is not a proper vehicle for extending the time to file an appeal that has been rendered untimely by the expiration of the thirty-day time window provided by Rule 4(a).
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: District Court lacks authority to extend time for appeal beyond constraints of Rule 4(a
citation_a.sentence: See also Bowles, 551 U.S. at 206-07, 127 S.Ct. 2360 (District Court lacks authority to extend time for appeal beyond constraints of Rule 4(a)).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 721 F.2d 91, 96
citation_b.parenthetical: "[T]he courts of appeals who have addressed this question have uniformly held that the albeit harsh time constraints of Rule 4(a
citation_b.sentence: See West v. Keve, 721 F.2d 91, 96 (3d Cir.1983) (“[T]he courts of appeals who have addressed this question have uniformly held that the albeit harsh time constraints of Rule 4(a) must control and that Rule 60(b) cannot be used as a means of avoiding dismissal for want of a timely appeal.”).