Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06052/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06052-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Corey Thomas Jones
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6052

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

COREY THOMAS JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior 

District Judge. (1:11-cr-00530-CMH-2; 1:14-cv-01493-CMH)

Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey Thomas Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, 

Patricia T. Giles, Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr., Assistant United

States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6052 Doc: 14 Filed: 08/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Corey Thomas Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying 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 

October 2, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on December 20, 

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

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

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

 *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: 16-6052 Doc: 14 Filed: 08/01/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6052 Doc: 14 Filed: 08/01/2016 Pg: 3 of 3