United States v. Corey Jones , 655 F. App'x 967 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6052
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
COREY THOMAS JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00530-CMH-2; 1:14-cv-01493-CMH)
Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Corey Thomas Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows,
Patricia T. Giles, Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Corey Thomas Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying 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
October 2, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on December 20,
2015. * Because Jones 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
*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
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3