Court Opinion

ID: 9882025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 21:00:44.19577+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:30.183110
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6103      Doc: 12         Filed: 10/03/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6103

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        CHRISTOPHER DONNELL BROWN, a/k/a Stymie, a/k/a Stimey,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:17-cr-00350-JFA-1; 3:21-
        cv-01831-JFA)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 3, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Christopher Donnell Brown, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant
        United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia,
        South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6103        Doc: 12       Filed: 10/03/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Christopher Donnell Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief

        on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying his motion to reopen the appeal period

        pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). We dismiss Brown’s appeal from the order denying

        his § 2255 motion and affirm the district court’s order denying Brown’s motion to reopen

        the appeal period.

               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 denying Brown’s § 2255 motion on

        April 19, 2022. Brown therefore had until June 20, 2022, to note a timely appeal. 1 On

        December 14, 2022, 2 Brown filed a motion to reopen the appeal period. Because Brown

        filed his motion to reopen beyond the 180-day period prescribed by Rule 4(a)(6), the

        district court properly denied the motion.

              Because the appeal period expired on Saturday, June 18, 2022, Brown had until
               1

        Monday, June 20, 2022, to file his notice of appeal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C).
               2
                 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that dates appearing on the documents
        Brown filed are the earliest dates Brown could have delivered the documents 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
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6103      Doc: 12         Filed: 10/03/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

               Brown filed his notice of appeal on January 20, 2023, seven months beyond the

        appeal period. Because Brown failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an

        extension or reopening of the appeal period, we lack jurisdiction to review the order

        denying his § 2255 motion. We therefore dismiss this portion of the appeal.

               For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal as to the denial of the § 2255 motion and

        we affirm the district court’s order denying Brown’s motion to reopen the appeal period.

        We deny Brown’s motion to expand the record, and 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 IN PART,
                                                                                AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                     3