United States v. Eric Johnson , 690 F. App'x 105 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6113
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:10-cr-00716-CCB-1; 1:15-cv-01605-CCB)
Submitted: May 23, 2017 Decided: May 26, 2017
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney,
Christina Ann Hoffman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Johnson 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 5, 2016. The notice
of appeal was filed on December 20, 2016. * Because Johnson 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