The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
20-6261•United States of America v. Vincent Donta White
20-6261Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 28, 2020
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6261
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VINCENT DONTA WHITE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00026-CCE-1; 1:17-cv-01082-
CCE-JLW)
Submitted: September 24, 2020 Decided: September 28, 2020
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vincent Donta White, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Vincent Donta White seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate.
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 December 3, 2019. White filed the notice of
appeal on February 4, 2020.* Because White failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny White’s motion for a
certificate of appealability and 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 White 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.