UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6029
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNETH ROSHAUN REID,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1; 0:09-cv-70126-CMC)
Submitted: February 23, 2017 Decided: February 28, 2017
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Acting
United States Attorney, Jimmie Ewing, William Kenneth
Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Roshaun Reid 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 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 17, 2010. The notice of appeal was filed on
January 6, 2017. * Because Reid 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
*For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the envelope containing the undated notice of
appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly
delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276
(1988).
2
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3