United States v. David Hill

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6994 Doc: 25 Filed: 06/30/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6994

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID HILL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:01-cr-00191-MSN-1; 1:04-cv- 1249)

Submitted: June 25, 2026 Decided: June 30, 2026

Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Hill, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6994 Doc: 25 Filed: 06/30/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

David Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on various

postjudgment motions filed in Hill’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. 1 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 February 26, 2025, and the appeal period

expired on April 28, 2025. Hill filed the notice of appeal on November 5, 2025. 2 Because

Hill failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the

appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.

1 In this court, Hill asks that we remand this matter to the district court for consideration of a motion that Hill suggests should have been docketed and to amend his declarations to his informal brief. (ECF Nos. 19-20, 22). While we grant the motions to amend, we deny the motion to remand. 2 For purposes of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date Hill could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6994 Doc: 25 Filed: 06/30/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

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