Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06350/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06350-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Brown
Appellant
Levern Cohen
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6350

DANIEL BROWN, a/k/a Daniel M. Brown,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN LEVERN COHEN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Bruce H. Hendricks, District 

Judge. (4:14-cv-03659-BHH)

Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6350 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his motion to alter or amend a prior order denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 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 

October 20, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed, at the 

earliest, on March 3, 2016. Because Brown 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 Brown’s 

motion to amend his informal brief. 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: 16-6350 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 2