United States v. Martinez Black

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 21, 2023
• Docket: 22-7378
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7378 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7378

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARTINEZ ORLANDIS BLACK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00364-RJC-1; 3:09-cv-00121- RJC)

Submitted: March 16, 2023 Decided: March 21, 2023

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Martinez Orlandis Black, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7378 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Martinez Orlandis Black seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. 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 April 27, 2009. Black filed the notice of

appeal on November 17, 2022. * Because Black 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 in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date Black 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).