US v. Corey Jone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 1:11-cr-00530-CMH-2, 1:14-cv-01493-CMH. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999901043]. Mailed to: Appellant. [16-6052]

Appeal: 16-6052

Doc: 14

Filed: 08/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6052

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
COREY THOMAS JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00530-CMH-2; 1:14-cv-01493-CMH)

Submitted:

July 28, 2016

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 1, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey Thomas Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows,
Patricia T. Giles, Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6052

Doc: 14

Filed: 08/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Corey Thomas Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying 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
October 2, 2015.
2015. *

The notice of appeal was filed on December 20,

Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

*For

adequately

presented

in

the

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: 16-6052

Doc: 14

materials

before

Filed: 08/01/2016

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3