mistake was excusable. This Court has repeatedly noted that there is unlikely ever to be harm in the Rule 4(a)(5) setting, because the neglectful appellant has a limited time period to request relief — in this case, sixty days — hence there will never be a terribly long delay. Marquez, 424 F.3d at 541-42; Prizevoits, 76 F.3d at 134. Thus, “[t]he word ‘excusable’ would be read out of the rule if inexcusable neglect were translated into excusable neglect by a mere absence of harm.” Prizevoits, 76 F.3d at 134. The district court was also incorrect in characterizing the attorney’s error as a “relatively minor mistake”; a timely notice of appeal is a mandatory prerequisite to appellate jurisdiction, and a failure to timely file results in dismissal of the case. Marquez, 424 F.3d at 542 (<HOLDING>). Depriving one’s case of a prerequisite for
holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal after an untimely filing of a notice of appeal holding that an untimely postjudgment motion does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal and that this court has no jurisdiction over an untimely filed appeal holding that lack of appellate jurisdiction is fundamental error holding that because record did not contain notice of appeal in compliance with rule 3 there was no appellate jurisdiction and appeal must be dismissed holding that the case must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction where notice of appeal was untimely