US v. Decarlos Wright

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999431776-2]. Originating case number: 5:12-cr-00170-H-2,5:13-cv-00342-H. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999657269]. Mailed to: Decarlos Wright. [14-7143]

Appeal: 14-7143

Doc: 12

Filed: 09/10/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7143

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DECARLOS ANTONIO WRIGHT, a/k/a Carlos Wright,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:12-cr-00170-H-2; 5:13-cv-00342-H)

Submitted:

August 31, 2015

Decided:

September 10, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Decarlos Antonio Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Tobin Webb Lathan,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7143

Doc: 12

Filed: 09/10/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Decarlos
court’s

order

Antonio

Wright

adopting

the

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

of

the
the

district
magistrate

judge and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and the
order denying his motion for reconsideration.

We dismiss the

appeal.
First, Wright did not timely appeal the district court’s
order denying his § 2255 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 denying Wright’s § 2255 motion
was entered on the docket on April 7, 2014.

Because Wright did

not file his motion for reconsideration within 28 days of that
order, his motion did not toll the 60-day appeal period.

See

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

Therefore,

because

appeal

obtain

Wright
an

failed

extension

to

or

file

a

reopening

timely
of

the

notice
appeal

of

period,

or
his

notice of appeal, filed on July 28, 2014, was untimely as to the
2

Appeal: 14-7143

Doc: 12

Filed: 09/10/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

order denying his § 2255 motion, and we dismiss the appeal of
the § 2255 order for lack of jurisdiction.
Wright’s appeal is timely as to the district court’s order
denying his motion for reconsideration.
confine
brief.

our

review

to

the

issues

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

challenge

the

reconsideration.

basis

for

However, on appeal, we

raised

in

the

appellant’s

Wright’s informal brief does not

the

district

court’s

denial

of

Because Wright has forfeited appellate review

of the court’s order, he fails to demonstrate that the district
court’s denial of reconsideration is debatable.

We therefore

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of
the order denying reconsideration.
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismiss

the

appeal

of

both

orders.

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