Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-30
Citations: 627 F. App'x 249
Docket Number: No. 15-7088
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 627
Pages: 249–250

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-7088.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 24, 2015.
Decided: Dec. 30, 2015.
Antonio Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Edwards seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing 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 casé is a jurisdictional requirement." Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on September 30, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on July 4, 2015. Because Edwards 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 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, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).