Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0100-01.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. Juan CALDERON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-6623
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: September 28, 2017
    Decided: October 3, 2017
    Juan Calderon, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorneys, Andrew Burke Moorman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,- for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Juan Calderon 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 June 5, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on April 10, 2017. Because Calderon failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny as moot Calderon’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 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 
      
       Although Dent’s informal brief also identifies the district court’s March 17, 2016, order dismissing the action in part and granting summary judgment in part, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review that order. See Fed. R, App. P. 3(c)(1)(B); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 176-77 (4th Cir. 2014).
     
      
       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, 276, 108 S.Ct 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).