Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07485/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07485-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ashlei Renee Robinson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7485

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

ASHLEI RENEE ROBINSON, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief 

District Judge. (7:12-cr-00102-GEC-JCH-1; 7:14-cv-80725-GECRSB) 

Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Ashlei Renee Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew 

Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 15-7485 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/18/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Ashlei Renee Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on her 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 

April 6, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on September 14, 

2015.* Because Robinson 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, 

276 (1988). 

Appeal: 15-7485 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/18/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7485 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/18/2015 Pg: 3 of 3