Court Opinion

ID: 4690740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-05-27 19:00:46.071381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:00.202412
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-7828

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

GREGORY LEE TAYLOR,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cr-00035-RGD-RJK-3)

Submitted: May 25, 2021                                           Decided: May 27, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Lee Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Gregory Lee Taylor appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice

his motion for an extension of time to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of

appeal was not timely filed.

       In civil cases, parties have 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 entered its order on April 8, 2020. Taylor filed the notice of

appeal, at the earliest, on December 7, 2020. * Because Taylor 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 purposes 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. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-72 (1988).

                                             2