UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7914
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHADRIQUEZ DEVON WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Michael F. Urbanski,
District Judge. (4:09-cr-00039-MFU-RSB-1; 4:13-cv-80576-SGW-
RSB)
Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chadriquez Devon Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew
Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia,
Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Chadriquez Devon Williams seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of its prior order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) motion. 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 dismissing Williams’ Rule 60(b)
motion was entered on the docket on September 9, 2015. Thus,
Williams had until November 9, 2015, to file a notice of appeal.
Williams’ notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on
December 1, 2015, 1 22 days beyond the appeal period. Although
Williams’ notice of appeal was filed beyond the expiration of
1 See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (holding
that a pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal is considered filed
the moment it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing to
the court).
2
the appeal period, it was filed within the 30-day excusable
neglect period and explicitly requested an extension of time to
file an appeal. Thus, Williams’ filing should have been
construed as a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal
under Rule 4(a)(5). Accordingly, we remand this case to the
district court so it may docket Williams’ motion for extension
of time and determine whether Williams has demonstrated
excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the
appeal period. 2 The record, as supplemented, will then be
returned to this court for further consideration.
REMANDED
2
By this disposition, we express no opinion as to whether
an extension of time is warranted.
3