Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07366/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07366-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7366

STACEY JONES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:16-

cv-01624-PWG)

Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 3, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacey Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7366 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/03/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Stacey Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

construing his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(2012) as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and dismissing it 

as untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the 

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on 

August 4, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on September 30, 

2016.* Because Jones failed to file 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 

 * We assume, for the purpose of this appeal, 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 (1988).

Appeal: 16-7366 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/03/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7366 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/03/2017 Pg: 3 of 3