United States v. Danny Roney ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-7351
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DANNY TERRON RONEY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
    Asheville. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (1:16-cr-00039-MOC-WCM-2; 1:20-cv-
    00381-MOC)
    Submitted: December 16, 2021                                Decided: December 20, 2021
    Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Danny Terron Roney, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Danny Terron Roney seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     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 in a civil case, 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 entered its order on June 18, 2021. Roney filed the notice of
    appeal on September 16, 2021. * Because Roney 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 Roney could have delivered the notice to prison officials for
    mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 
    487 U.S. 266
    , 276 (1988).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-7351

Filed Date: 12/20/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/20/2021