US v. Sammie Carroll, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00120-WDQ-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998429236] [10-6805]

US v. Sammie Carroll, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 10-6805 Document: 11

Date Filed: 09/21/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6805 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff ­ Appellee, v. SAMMIE LEE CARROLL, JR., Defendant ­ Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cr-00120-WDQ-1) Submitted: September 15, 2010 Decided: September 21, 2010

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sammie Lee Carroll, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Christopher John Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6805 Document: 11

Date Filed: 09/21/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Sammie Lee Carroll, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2009) 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 sixty 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). timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case "[T]he is a

jurisdictional requirement." 214 (2007).

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,

The district court's order was entered on the docket on March 25, 2010, and Carroll had until May 24, 2010, to file his notice of appeal. 2010. * The notice of appeal was filed on May 25,

Because Carroll 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

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

Case: 10-6805 Document: 11

Date Filed: 09/21/2010

Page: 3

facts

and

legal before

contentions the court

are and

adequately argument

presented not

in aid

the the

materials

would

decisional process. DISMISSED

3