United States v. Daniel Williford
United States v. Daniel Williford
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7797
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL HAROLD WILLIFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00329-MOC-DCK-1; 3:16-cv- 00751-MOC)
Submitted: February 18, 2020 Decided: February 21, 2020
Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Harold Williford, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Daniel Harold Williford seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his
28 U.S.C. § 2255(2018) 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 in a civil case, 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 entered its order on March 13, 2018. Williford filed the notice of
appeal on November 25, 2019. * Because Williford failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date Williford could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack,
487 U.S. 266, 276(1988).
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished