US v. Adrian Parker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cr-00087-FDW-4,3:14-cv-00676-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999723118]. Mailed to: Adrian Parker. [15-7436]

Appeal: 15-7436

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7436

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ADRIAN PARKER, a/k/a Great One, a/k/a Rock,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:10-cr-00087-FDW-4; 3:14-cv-00676-FDW)

Submitted:

December 17, 2015

Decided:

December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrian Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7436

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Adrian Parker 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 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 was entered on the docket on
May 18, 2015.
2015. *

The notice of appeal was filed on September 1,

Because Parker failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

*For

the

facts

and

We

legal

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: 15-7436

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 12/22/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3