26, 2011, the District Court granted Boeing’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement, applied a charging lien in favor of Surkin’s firm, and dismissed the action with prejudice. On August 11, 2011, the District Court clarified its May 26, 2011 order and granted Sur-kin’s motion to compel compliance with it. On September 12, 2011, Kelly appealed. II. Discussion A. Jurisdiction Boeing contends that the appeal should be dismissed as untimely because it was filed more than thirty days after the May 26, 2011 order, which dismissed the action with prejudice. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (requiring notice of appeal in civil case to be filed within 30 days of entry of order or judgment being appealed); see also Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209-10, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007) (<HOLDING>). It is undisputed, however, that Kelly timely
holding 30day limit to be mandatory and jurisdictional holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that the 30day notice of appeal requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that the thirty day time limit was mandatory but not jurisdictional holding that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional