United States of America v. Andrew Dean Bailey

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7107
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANDREW DEAN BAILEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (8:17-cr-00225-LKG-1)
Submitted: September 13, 2024 Decided: October 2, 2024
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew Dean Bailey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Andrew Dean Bailey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 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 August 30, 2022, and the appeal period expired
on October 31, 2022. Although Bailey filed a document in the district court during the
appeal period, that document was not a notice of appeal. Bailey filed a notice of appeal on
October 24, 2023, nearly a year past the expiration of the appeal period. * Because Bailey
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we dismiss the appeal.
* For purposes of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of
appeal is the earliest date Bailey could have delivered the notice of appeal to prison officials
for mailing. Fed. R. App. P.4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --