US v. Antonio Edward

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999849880-2]. Originating case numbers: 1:10-cr-00769-JFM-1, 1:14-cv-00920-JFM. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999915313]. Mailed to: Appellant. [16-6422]

Appeal: 16-6422

Doc: 12

Filed: 08/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6422

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO EDWARDS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge.
(1:10-cr-00769-JFM-1; 1:14-cv-00920-JFM)

Submitted:

August 18, 2016

Decided:

August 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Edwards, Appellant Pro Se.
Assistant United States Attorney,
Appellee.

Michael Clayton Hanlon,
Baltimore, Maryland, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6422

Doc: 12

Filed: 08/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Antonio Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing 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.
We

previously

dismissed

Edwards’

appeal

for

lack

jurisdiction on the same ground—untimely notice of appeal.

of

United

States v. Edwards, 627 F. App’x 249 (4th Cir. 2015) (No. 15-7088).
Edwards subsequently moved in the district court to reopen the
appeal period, which the court granted by margin order.

However,

the district court did not have the authority to reopen the appeal
period because Edwards’ motion was filed more than 180 days after
the district court judgment denying Edwards’ § 2255 motion.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(B).

See

Thus, Edwards’ new notice of appeal

is also untimely, and we continue to lack jurisdiction to hear
Edwards’

appeal.

Therefore,

we

deny

Edwards’

motion

for

appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2