Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-20-06110/USCOURTS-ca4-20-06110-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Ray Matthews
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6110

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENNETH RAY MATTHEWS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:16-cr-00061-RAJ-RJK-1; 2:19-cv00205-RAJ)

Submitted: May 19, 2020 Decided: May 22, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Ray Matthews, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6110 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/22/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Ray Matthews seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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 in a civil case, 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 entered its order on September 23, 2019. Matthews filed the notice 

of appeal on January 13, 2020.

*

 Because Matthews 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 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of 

appeal is the earliest date Matthews could have delivered the notice to prison officials for 

mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6110 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/22/2020 Pg: 2 of 2