United States of America v. Muttaqin F. Abdullah, a/k/a King, a/k/a Clayton Montray Pinckney

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6555
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MUTTAQIN F. ABDULLAH, a/k/a King, a/k/a Clayton Montray Pinckney,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00014-SAL-1)
Submitted: May 21, 2024 Decided: May 23, 2024
Before WYNN and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Muttaqin F. Abdullah, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Michelle Stoughton, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Muttaqin F. Abdullah seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his motion
for immediate release from state custody as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying the
petition. 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 August 30, 2021, and the appeal period expired
on September 29, 2021. Abdullah filed the notice of appeal on May 27, 2023.* Because
Abdullah 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 Abdullah 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 of 2 --