Court Opinion

ID: 9914371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-30 21:01:12.431117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:51.594332
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6974      Doc: 10        Filed: 12/29/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6848

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ROY LEE DYKES,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

                                              No. 23-6974

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ROY LEE DYKES,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big
        Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cr-00003-JPJ-PMS-1)

        Submitted: December 13, 2023                                Decided: December 29, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6974      Doc: 10         Filed: 12/29/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        Before AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Roy Lee Dykes, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Patrick Jones, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
        STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6974      Doc: 10          Filed: 12/29/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Roy Lee Dykes appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions for an

        extension of time to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Because Dykes had not filed a § 2255

        motion and his motions for an extension of time did “not articulate[] any basis in fact or in

        law for relief under [§] 2255,” the district court correctly found that it lacked jurisdiction

        to consider the motions. Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 84 (2d Cir. 2001); United

        States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 163-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam); accord United States v.

        Asakevich, 810 F.3d 418, 419-24 (6th Cir. 2016).

               Accordingly, we grant Dykes’ motion to supplement his informal brief, deny his

        motions to stay, * and affirm the district court’s orders. United States v. Dykes, No.

        2:18-cr-00003-JPJ-PMS-1 (W.D. Va. Aug. 14, 2023; Sept. 18, 2023). 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.

                                                                                       AFFIRMED

               *
                Dykes’ subsequently-filed § 2255 motion remains pending in the district court.
        We find it unnecessary to stay the instant appeals pending the district court’s resolution of
        that motion. We express no opinion as to the merits of Dykes’ arguments regarding
        timeliness and equitable tolling.

                                                      3