United States v. Roy Dykes ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6974 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6848
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROY LEE DYKES,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-6974
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROY LEE DYKES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big
Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cr-00003-JPJ-PMS-1)
Submitted: December 13, 2023 Decided: December 29, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6974 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
Before AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roy Lee Dykes, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Patrick Jones, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6974 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/29/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Roy Lee Dykes appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions for an
extension of time to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Because Dykes had not filed a § 2255
motion and his motions for an extension of time did “not articulate[] any basis in fact or in
law for relief under [§] 2255,” the district court correctly found that it lacked jurisdiction
to consider the motions. Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 84 (2d Cir. 2001); United
States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 163-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam); accord United States v.
Asakevich, 810 F.3d 418, 419-24 (6th Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, we grant Dykes’ motion to supplement his informal brief, deny his
motions to stay, * and affirm the district court’s orders. United States v. Dykes, No.
2:18-cr-00003-JPJ-PMS-1 (W.D. Va. Aug. 14, 2023; Sept. 18, 2023). 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.
AFFIRMED
*
Dykes’ subsequently-filed § 2255 motion remains pending in the district court.
We find it unnecessary to stay the instant appeals pending the district court’s resolution of
that motion. We express no opinion as to the merits of Dykes’ arguments regarding
timeliness and equitable tolling.
3