United States v. Daniel McNeil , 673 F. App'x 327 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7638
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL JUNIOR MCNEIL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:10-cr-00406-WO-1; 1:13-cv-00718-
WO-LPA)
Submitted: January 10, 2017 Decided: January 19, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Junior McNeil, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Junior McNeil seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on 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.
When, as here, 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 was entered on the docket on
August 11, 2015. The district court found on limited remand
from this court that the notice of appeal was not timely filed
under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). We review this factual finding
for clear error, see Ray v. Clements, 700 F.3d 993, 1012 (7th
Cir. 2012), and we discern no such error. Thus, the notice of
appeal was filed on October 16, 2015, beyond the appeal period.
Because McNeil 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
2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3