Court Opinion

ID: 4123179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-02-03 20:01:18.580432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:23.332510
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 16-7366

STACEY JONES,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

STATE OF MARYLAND,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:16-
cv-01624-PWG)

Submitted:   January 31, 2017             Decided:   February 3, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacey Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 (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

      *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 (1988).

                                           2
materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3