United States v. Davis ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7101
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HOWARD DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-92-524, CA-99-1043-8-20-AK)
Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 8, 1999
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Howard Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders deny-
ing his motions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999),
and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We dismiss the appeal from the denial
of the § 2255 motion for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal
was untimely filed. The district court entered its order denying
§ 2255 relief on May 17, 1999. Davis did not specifically mention
the May 17 order in his notice of appeal but stated in his informal
brief filed in this court on September 15, 1999, that he also seeks
to appeal the May 17 order. Although an informal brief may be
construed as a notice of appeal when it satisfies the requirements
of Fed. R. App. P. 3, see Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 247-49
(1992), Davis did not file his informal brief within the sixty-day
appeal period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), nor did the dis-
trict court extend the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)
or reopen the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). We
therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this
portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
With regard to Davis' appeal from the denial of his Rule 60(b)
motion, we have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-
ion and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny a cer-
tificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of the appeal on
the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Davis,
Nos. CR-92-524; CA-99-1043-8-20-AK (D.S.C. June 18, 1999). We dis-
2
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3