United States of America v. Gregory Lee Taylor

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7828
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY LEE TAYLOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cr-00035-RGD-RJK-3)
Submitted: May 25, 2021 Decided: May 27, 2021
Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Lee Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Lee Taylor appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
his motion for an extension of time to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of
appeal was not timely filed.
In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final
judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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 8, 2020. Taylor filed the notice of
appeal, at the earliest, on December 7, 2020.* Because Taylor 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 purposes 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. See Fed. R. App. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-72 (1988).

-- 2 of 2 --