Court Opinion

ID: 4362212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-01-25 22:00:37.612755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:19:31.202369
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-7217

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

FABRICE SNOWDEN,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00100-CCB-1; 1:09-cv-03194-CCB)

Submitted: January 22, 2019                                       Decided: January 25, 2019

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fabrice Snowden, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Fabrice Snowden 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 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 March 11, 2010.

The notice of appeal was filed on September 24, 2018. * Because Snowden failed to file a

timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

dismiss the appeal. We deny Snowden’s motion to appoint counsel and 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276
(1988).

                                             2