United States v. Adrian Parker , 627 F. App'x 203 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7436
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ADRIAN PARKER, a/k/a Great One, a/k/a Rock,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:10-cr-00087-FDW-4; 3:14-cv-00676-FDW)
Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adrian Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adrian Parker 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
May 18, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on September 1,
2015. * Because Parker failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
*Forthe 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
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3