Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07436/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07436-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adrian Parker
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7436

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ADRIAN PARKER, a/k/a Great One, a/k/a Rock,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (3:10-cr-00087-FDW-4; 3:14-cv-00676-FDW)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrian Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7436 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Adrian Parker 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 

May 18, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on September 1, 

2015.* Because Parker failed to file a timely notice of appeal 

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

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

 *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 

(1988). 

Appeal: 15-7436 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7436 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 3 of 3