Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07371/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07371-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
William Anthony Young
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7371

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM ANTHONY YOUNG,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior

District Judge. (3:02-cr-00216-CM; 3:14-cv-01682-CMC)

Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 3, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Anthony Young, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth 

Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7371 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/03/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

William Anthony Young 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 sixty 

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 June 24, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on August 26, 

2014.* Because Young failed to file a timely notice of appeal,

and the district court denied Young’s motion for an extension of 

the appeal period, finding that he did not demonstrate good 

cause or excusable neglect as required by Rule 4(a)(5), we 

 * 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: 14-7371 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/03/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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: 14-7371 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/03/2015 Pg: 3 of 3