UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7088
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO EDWARDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00769-JFM-1; 1:14-cv-00920-JFM)
Submitted: November 24, 2015 Decided: December 30, 2015
Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing 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 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
September 30, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on July 4,
2015. * Because Edwards 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
*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
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3