USCA4 Appeal: 21-7561 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7561
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIN EARL ELROD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:18-cr-00034-FL-1; 4:20-cv-00156-
FL)
Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 25, 2022
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Earl Elrod, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7561 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Earl Elrod seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Elrod’s first 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion and the court’s order dismissing Elrod’s second § 2255 motion as
successive and unauthorized. 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 in a civil case, 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 entered its orders on April 14, 2021, and May 12, 2021. Elrod
filed the notice of appeal on October 14, 2021. 1 Because Elrod failed to file a timely notice
of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the
appeal. 2
1
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the postmark
is the earliest date Elrod could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to
the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1)(A)(ii); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
2
Moreover, Elrod already appealed the April 14 order and may not do so a second
time.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7561 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
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
United States v. Kevin Elrod
Combined Opinion