United States of America v. Stephon Mason, a/k/a Step, a/k/a Step Dog, a/k/a Dog

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6292
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEPHON MASON, a/k/a Step, a/k/a Step Dog, a/k/a Dog,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:03-cr-00321-AW-4; 8:08-cv-02260-AW)
Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephon Mason, Appellant Pro Se. Stacy Dawson Belf, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Stephon Mason seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009)
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 sixty
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 April 30, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on January
27, 2010.*
* 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
(1988).
Because Mason 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --