Court Opinion

ID: 4458793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-11-25 20:00:21.794555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:53:34.863159
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-6807

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

MICHAEL SMITH, a/k/a Lil Mikey,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00677-GLR-21; 1:17-cv-02828-GLR)

Submitted: November 21, 2019                                Decided: November 25, 2019

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Michael Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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, 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’s order was entered on the docket on January 15, 2019. The notice

of appeal was filed on May 18, 2019. * Because Smith 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 it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for
mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

                                              2