United States v. Jamar Brice , 546 F. App'x 323 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-7494
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JAMAR BRICE, a/k/a Esco,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.     Frank D. Whitney,
    Chief District Judge. (3:03-cr-00036-FDW-9; 3:12-cv-00525-FDW)
    Submitted:   November 19, 2013              Decided: November 22, 2013
    Before WYNN and     FLOYD,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jamar Brice,    Appellant Pro Se.    Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
    United States   Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Keith Michael
    Cave, OFFICE    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North
    Carolina, for   Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jamar Brice seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    dismissing his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 2013) 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 sixty
    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 November 26, 2012.           The notice of appeal was filed, at the
    earliest, on August 26, 2013.                   Because Brice 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-2233

Citation Numbers: 546 F. App'x 323

Filed Date: 11/22/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023