United States v. Antonio Edwards

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6422
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO EDWARDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge.
(1:10-cr-00769-JFM-1; 1:14-cv-00920-JFM)
Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 23, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing 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.
We previously dismissed Edwards’ appeal for lack of
jurisdiction on the same ground—untimely notice of appeal. United
States v. Edwards, 627 F. App’x 249 (4th Cir. 2015) (No. 15-7088).
Edwards subsequently moved in the district court to reopen the
appeal period, which the court granted by margin order. However,
the district court did not have the authority to reopen the appeal
period because Edwards’ motion was filed more than 180 days after
the district court judgment denying Edwards’ § 2255 motion. See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(B). Thus, Edwards’ new notice of appeal
is also untimely, and we continue to lack jurisdiction to hear
Edwards’ appeal. Therefore, we deny Edwards’ motion for
appointment of counsel and 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
2