dated his notice of appeal April 13, 2012, but it is date-stamped received and was filed in Bankruptcy Court on May 3, 2012. The date a court receives a notice of appeal controls whether it was timely filed. See United States v. Solly, 545 F.2d 874, 876 (3d Cir. 1976) (construing Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure); see also Caterbone, 640 F.3d at 110 (looking at date notice of appeal in bankruptcy case was filed, not sent, in assessing timeliness). Because Hussain’s notice of appeal was received after the 14-day time period expired on April 23, 2012, it was untimely. Hussain also did not file a motion to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal pursuant Rule 8002(c). The District Court thus lacked jurisdiction to entertain Hussain’s appeal. See Caterbone, 640 F.3d at 111-12 (<HOLDING>). As a result, we also lack jurisdiction over
holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that timeliness of filing of notice of appeal is a jurisdictional issue holding that the filing of an opening brief within the time period for filing a notice of appeal could constitute notice of appeal holding time for filing notice of appeal under rule 8002 is jurisdictional holding that a pro se litigants failure to comply with the filing deadlines for a notice of appeal set out in federal rule of bankruptcy procedure 8002 meant that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the litigants appeal