United States v. Jeronza Thorne ( 2021 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7391 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7391
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERONZA THORNE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00293-MOC-1; 3:17-cv-00234-
MOC)
Submitted: December 21, 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeronza Thorne, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7391 Doc: 7 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Jeronza Thorne seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion. 1 We dismiss this 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 29, 2020. Thorne filed the notice of
appeal on September 16, 2021. 2 Because Thorne failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.
We deny Thorne’s motion to appoint counsel and 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
1
We dismissed Thorne’s previously filed appeal for failure to prosecute. United
States v. Thorne, No. 20-7065 (4th Cir. Sept. 21, 2020) (unpublished order).
2
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of
appeal is the earliest date Thorne 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