United States v. Michael Tucker
United States v. Michael Tucker
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6554 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/21/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6554
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL JAMAL TUCKER, a/k/a Jay,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:16-cr-00002-JPJ-1; 7:21-cv-81474- JPJ)
Submitted: October 18, 2022 Decided: October 21, 2022
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Jamal Tucker, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Andrew Baudinet, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6554 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/21/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Jamal Tucker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his
28 U.S.C. § 2255motion. 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 October 18, 2021. Tucker filed the notice of
appeal on May 6, 2022. Because Tucker failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain
an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motion for appointment of
counsel and 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
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished