US v. Ceron Montrell Reed

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:05-cr-00419-RJC-DCK-1,3:12-cv-00377-RJC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999894518]. Mailed to: Reed. [16-6605]

Appeal: 16-6605

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6605

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CERON MONTRELL REED,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge.
(3:05-cr-00419-RJC-DCK-1; 3:12-cv-00377RJC)

Submitted:

July 21, 2016

Decided:

July 22, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ceron Montrell Reed, Appellant Pro Se.
Kevin Zolot, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6605

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ceron Montrell Reed seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as untimely.
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
September 15, 2015.
2016. *

The notice of appeal was filed on April 5,

Because Reed 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

*

adequately

presented

in

the

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,
276 (1988).

2

Appeal: 16-6605

Doc: 8

materials

before

Filed: 07/22/2016

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3