United States v. Raymond Gill

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6357 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6357

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND EDWARD GILL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00577-RDB-1)

Submitted: August 18, 2022 Decided: August 23, 2022

Before WYNN, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Edward Gill, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6357 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

On March 25, 2022, * Raymond Edward Gill filed a notice of appeal in the district

court, seeking to challenge the district court’s refusal to grant Gill compassionate release.

By order entered June 12, 2020, the district court denied Gill’s April 2020 motion for

compassionate release—as well as several other motions, including a 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion, that Gill filed around the same time (“June 12 Order”). In his appeal of the June

12 Order, Gill challenged only the district court’s denial of § 2255 relief, United States v.

Gill, Appeal No. 20-6946 (ECF Nos. 4, 7, 9, 13-14), and this court denied a certificate of

appealability and dismissed Gill’s appeal, United States v. Gill, 829 F. App’x 648 (4th Cir.

2020) (No. 20-6946). The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the underlying appeal.

We grant the Government’s motion. First, to the extent Gill seeks review of the

June 12 Order, Gill already appealed that order but failed to challenge the district court’s

denial of compassionate release in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Thus, in

addition to being nearly two years untimely, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (affording 60

days to appeal when the United States is a party); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214

(2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional

requirement.”), Gill’s appeal is also duplicative. Second, to the extent Gill’s appeal relates

to the motion for reconsideration that he filed in November 2021, in which Gill sought

* See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (holding that a pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal is considered filed the moment it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing to the court).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6357 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/23/2022 Pg: 3 of 3

reconsideration of the court’s decision denying compassionate release, that portion of the

appeal is premature because the reconsideration motion is still pending in the district court.

For these reasons, we grant the Government’s motion and dismiss this 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