Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06422/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06422-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6422

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO EDWARDS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. 

(1:10-cr-00769-JFM-1; 1:14-cv-00920-JFM)

Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6422 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing 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.

We previously dismissed Edwards’ appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction on the same ground—untimely notice of appeal. United 

States v. Edwards, 627 F. App’x 249 (4th Cir. 2015) (No. 15-7088). 

Edwards subsequently moved in the district court to reopen the 

appeal period, which the court granted by margin order. However, 

the district court did not have the authority to reopen the appeal 

period because Edwards’ motion was filed more than 180 days after 

the district court judgment denying Edwards’ § 2255 motion. See

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(B). Thus, Edwards’ new notice of appeal 

is also untimely, and we continue to lack jurisdiction to hear 

Edwards’ appeal. Therefore, we deny Edwards’ motion for 

appointment of counsel and 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

Appeal: 16-6422 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 2