United States of America v. Decarlos Antonio Wright, a/k/a Carlos Wright

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7143
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DECARLOS ANTONIO WRIGHT, a/k/a Carlos Wright,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:12-cr-00170-H-2; 5:13-cv-00342-H)
Submitted: August 31, 2015 Decided: September 10, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Decarlos Antonio Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Tobin Webb Lathan,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Decarlos Antonio Wright seeks to appeal the district
court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and the
order denying his motion for reconsideration. We dismiss the
appeal.
First, Wright did not timely appeal the district court’s
order denying his § 2255 motion. 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 denying Wright’s § 2255 motion
was entered on the docket on April 7, 2014. Because Wright did
not file his motion for reconsideration within 28 days of that
order, his motion did not toll the 60-day appeal period. See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Therefore,
because Wright failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, his
notice of appeal, filed on July 28, 2014, was untimely as to the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
order denying his § 2255 motion, and we dismiss the appeal of
the § 2255 order for lack of jurisdiction.
Wright’s appeal is timely as to the district court’s order
denying his motion for reconsideration. However, on appeal, we
confine our review to the issues raised in the appellant’s
brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Wright’s informal brief does not
challenge the basis for the district court’s denial of
reconsideration. Because Wright has forfeited appellate review
of the court’s order, he fails to demonstrate that the district
court’s denial of reconsideration is debatable. We therefore
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of
the order denying reconsideration.
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismiss the appeal of both orders. 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

-- 3 of 3 --