United States v. Joey White , 693 F. App'x 203 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6318
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOEY LAMAR WHITE, a/k/a Little Joey, a/k/a Black, a/k/a Savage,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Elizabeth City. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (2:11-cr-00028-FL-1; 2:14-cv-
00037-FL)
Submitted: July 5, 2017 Decided: July 18, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joey Lamar White, Appellant Pro Se. James Bradsher, Shailika S. Kotiya, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joey Lamar White seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 February 24, 2016. The
notice of appeal was filed on March 3, 2017. * Because White 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