United States v. Quentin Hayes , 584 F. App'x 126 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6086
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
QUENTIN DAWAN HAYES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:10-cr-00941-RBH-2; 4:13-cv-02832-RBH)
Submitted: September 24, 2014 Decided: October 2, 2014
Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Quentin Dawan Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Quentin Dawan Hayes seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
This appeal is before us following our limited remand to the
district court for a determination of the date on which Hayes
delivered the notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing.
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 October 31, 2013. The notice of appeal was filed on January
7, 2014. * Because Hayes failed to file a timely notice of appeal
*
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(1988).
2
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
3