United States of America v. Thomas Montril Brown, a/k/a Sparks

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6473
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
THOMAS MONTRIL BROWN, a/k/a Sparks,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:05-cr-00770-TLW-1; 4:08-cv-70050-TLW)
Submitted: September 18, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Montril Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Montril Brown seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013). 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 September 30, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on
March 14, 2013.* Because Brown failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,
we dismiss the appeal. We deny the motion for appointment of
* 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
counsel and 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

-- 3 of 3 --