Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06333/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06333-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6333

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HAROLD EUGENE PATTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:07-cr-00033-MR-DLH-9; 1:11-cv-00331-MR)

Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 24, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harold Eugene Patton, Appellant Pro Se. William Michael Miller, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6333 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Harold Eugene Patton seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on 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 (2007).

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

August 6, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on February 28, 

2015.1 Because Patton failed to file a timely notice of appeal 

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

dismiss the appeal.2 We dispense with oral argument because the 

 1 Because Patton is incarcerated, the notice is considered 

filed on the date it was properly delivered to prison officials 

for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. 

Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 

2 In his informal brief, Patton states that he also seeks to 

appeal the district court’s subsequent order construing his 

motion to reopen his case as a successive § 2255 motion and 

(Continued)

Appeal: 15-6333 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

 

dismissing it on that basis. We likewise dismiss the appeal as 

to that order as untimely filed. 

Appeal: 15-6333 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 3 of 3