Case Name: Stacey JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-03
Citations: 675 F. App'x 359
Docket Number: No. 16-7366
Parties: Stacey JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 675
Pages: 359–360

Head Matter:
Stacey JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-7366
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 31, 2017
Decided: February 3, 2017
Stacey Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stacey Jones seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and dismissing it as untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court's final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on August 4, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on September 30, 2016. 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 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
We assume, for the purpose of this appeal, 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, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).