United States of America v. Rene Ellis, a/k/a Money, a/k/a Nut

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7669
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RENE ELLIS, a/k/a Money, a/k/a Nut,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:01-cr-01024-CMC-7; 3:14-cv-03607-CMC)
Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 20, 2016
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rene Ellis, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Marshall Prince,
II, Assistant United States Attorneys, Nancy Chastain Wicker,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Rene Ellis seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive. 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 11, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on September
25, 2015.* Because Ellis 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
*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).

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --