Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06283/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06283-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
DeAndrew Lamont Carter
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6283

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEANDREW LAMONT CARTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:08-cr-00527-HEH-1; 3:11-cv-00212-HEH)

Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 27, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

DeAndrew Lamont Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Angela MastandreaMiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6283 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

DeAndrew Lamont Carter 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 

September 24, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on January 

21, 2015.*

 Because Carter 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

 * 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: 15-6283 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6283 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/27/2015 Pg: 3 of 3