United States v. Paul Osuji , 610 F. App'x 256 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6153
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PAUL OSUJI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00415-MOC-1; 3:14-cv-00009-MOC)
Submitted: July 20, 2015 Decided: July 23, 2015
Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul Osuji, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Bain-Creed, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, William A. Brafford, Melissa Louise
Rikard, Michael E. Savage, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Paul Osuji seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and its order granting his
motion for a determination on whether to grant a certificate of
appealability and denying such a certificate. We dismiss the
appeal.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a party,
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’s order denying Osuji’s § 2255 motion was
entered on the docket on September 30, 2014. Osuji’s notice of
appeal was filed on January 27, 2015. * Because Osuji failed to
file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period with respect to the September 30
* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to
the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266,
276 (1988).
2
order, we are without jurisdiction to review it. We therefore
dismiss the appeal with respect to this order as untimely.
Turning to the district court’s January 16, 2015, order
denying Osuji a certificate of appealability, we conclude in light
of our dismissal of Osuji’s appeal of the order denying his § 2255
motion that his appeal of the order denying a certificate of
appealability is moot. We therefore dismiss as moot Osuji’s appeal
as to this order.
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
3