US v. Harold Patton
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:07-cr-00033-MR-DLH-9, 1:11-cv-00331-MR. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Harold Eugene Patton Jr.. [15-6333]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
HAROLD EUGENE PATTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00033-MR-DLH-9; 1:11-cv-00331-MR)
August 20, 2015
August 24, 2015
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harold Eugene Patton, Appellant Pro Se. William Michael Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Harold Eugene Patton seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
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 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).
filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
August 6, 2014.
The notice of appeal was filed on February 28,
Because Patton failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal. 2
We dispense with oral argument because the
Because Patton is incarcerated, the notice is considered
filed on the date it was properly delivered to prison officials
for mailing to the court.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v.
Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
In his informal brief, Patton states that he also seeks to
appeal the district court’s subsequent order construing his
motion to reopen his case as a successive § 2255 motion and
Pg: 3 of 3
dismissing it on that basis. We likewise dismiss the appeal as
to that order as untimely filed.
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?