Court Opinion

ID: 5136555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-12-20 21:01:28.816863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:13.758801
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 21-7351

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

DANNY TERRON RONEY,

                     Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (1:16-cr-00039-MOC-WCM-2; 1:20-cv-
00381-MOC)

Submitted: December 16, 2021                                Decided: December 20, 2021

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danny Terron Roney, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Danny Terron Roney seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 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 in a civil case, 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 entered its order on June 18, 2021. Roney filed the notice of

appeal on September 16, 2021. * Because Roney 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 Roney could have delivered the notice to prison officials for
mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

                                             2