US v. Decarlos Wright
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Decarlos Wright. [14-7143]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
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)
August 31, 2015
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
judge and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and the
order denying his motion for reconsideration.
We dismiss the
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.
“[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.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
notice of appeal, filed on July 28, 2014, was untimely as to the
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.
See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
However, on appeal, we
Wright’s informal brief does not
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.
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of
the order denying reconsideration.
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
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?