US v. DeAndrew Carter
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00527-HEH-1, 3:11-cv-00212-HEH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999590496]. Mailed to: DeAndrew Lamont Carter. [15-6283]
Appeal: 15-6283
Doc: 8
Filed: 05/27/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6283
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEANDREW LAMONT CARTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:08-cr-00527-HEH-1; 3:11-cv-00212-HEH)
Submitted:
May 21, 2015
Decided:
May 27, 2015
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
DeAndrew Lamont Carter, Appellant Pro Se.
Miller, Assistant United States Attorney,
for Appellee.
Angela MastandreaRichmond, Virginia,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-6283
Doc: 8
Filed: 05/27/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
DeAndrew Lamont Carter 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 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).
“[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 24, 2013.
21, 2015. *
The notice of appeal was filed on January
Because Carter 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 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
Appeal: 15-6283
Doc: 8
Filed: 05/27/2015
Pg: 3 of 3
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the 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?