Khalid Mahammed v. DAVID GREEN, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6158
KHALID MAHAMMED,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID GREEN, Warden; MAJOR HAGGIE; CAPTAIN JARVIS, Baltimore City
Correctional Center; SYNESSA JEFFERSON,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-01338-JKB)
Submitted: August 27, 2024 Decided: August 30, 2024
Before KING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Khalid Austin Mahammed, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Khalid Austin Mahammed seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice
of appeal was not timely filed.
In civil cases, unless the United States or its officer or agency is a party, notices of
appeal must be filed no more than 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final
judgment or order, 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 denying Mahammed’s § 2241 petition on
December 19, 2023. Mahammed filed a notice of appeal on February 14, 2024.* Because
Mahammed failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.
* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of
appeal is the earliest date Mahammed 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). We note that Mahammed mistakenly dated the notice of appeal 2023, however we
conclude this was a scrivener’s error because the court entered the order Mahammed
appeals from on December 19, 2023.

-- 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 --