US v. Sammie Carroll, Jr.


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
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 Doc. 0 Case: 10-6805 Document: 11 Date Filed: 09/21/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6805 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SAMMIE LEE CARROLL, JR., Defendant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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?