Court Opinion

ID: 9390128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 21:00:51.599842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:31.625650
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7455     Doc: 7         Filed: 04/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7337

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RAYMOND EDWARD GILL,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

                                              No. 22-7455

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RAYMOND EDWARD GILL,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00577-RDB-1)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                          Decided: April 25, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7455      Doc: 7        Filed: 04/25/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Raymond Edward Gill, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7455      Doc: 7         Filed: 04/25/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               In these consolidated cases, Raymond Edward Gill filed multiple notices of appeal

        in the underlying criminal action. In Appeal No. 22-7337, Gill filed three notices of appeal

        summarily indicating an intent to appeal three motions filed in Gill’s criminal case. In

        Appeal No. 22-7455, Gill summarily indicates that he is appealing (a) the underlying

        criminal case; and (b) a civil case in which the district court, by order entered June 12,

        2020, denied several motions, including a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and Gill’s motion for

        compassionate release (hereinafter the “June 12 Order”). ∗ We dismiss in part and affirm

        in part.

               As to Appeal No. 22-7337, to the extent Gill seeks to appeal the several motions he

        filed in the underlying criminal action, the district court docket confirms that the court had

        not adjudicated these motions when Gill filed his notices of appeal. Gill’s appeal is

        therefore premature and, accordingly, interlocutory. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291-1292; Fed. R.

        Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949).

               As to Appeal No. 22-7455, to the extent Gill seeks review of the June 12 Order, Gill

        already appealed that order and, thus, in addition to being more than two years untimely,

        see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (affording 60 days to appeal when the United States is a

        party); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a notice of

               ∗
                  Gill previously appealed the June 12 Order, challenging only the denial of § 2255
        relief, see United States v. Gill, No. 20-6946 (ECF Nos. 4, 7, 9, 13-14), and this court
        denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Gill’s appeal, United States v. Gill, 829
        F. App’x 648 (4th Cir. 2020) (No. 20-6946).

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7455      Doc: 7         Filed: 04/25/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”), Gill’s appeal is also duplicative.

        We therefore dismiss the appeals, in part.

               Finally, to the extent Gill’s informal brief challenges that portion of the district

        court’s December 7, 2022, order again denying compassionate release, we discern no abuse

        of discretion by the district court. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.

        2021) (per curiam) (stating standard of review). Therefore, we also affirm in part. United

        States v. Gill, No. 1:13-cr-00577-RDB-1 (D. Md. Dec. 7, 2022).

               Based on the foregoing, we dismiss these appeals in part and affirm in part. 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

                                                     4