Case ID: f-appx_655/html/0967-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Corey Thomas JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-6052
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 28, 2016
    Decided: August 1, 2016
    Corey Thomas Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, Patricia T. Giles, Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Corey Thomas Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice -of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on October 2, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on December 20, 2015. Because Jones failed to ñle a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED 
      
       For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).