United States of America v. Treadway Levon Manning, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6269
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TREADWAY LEVON MANNING, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (4:97-cr-00323-CMC-1; 4:22-cv-
00270-CMC)
Submitted: May 22, 2025 Decided: May 28, 2025
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Treadway Levon Manning, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Coble Major, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Treadway Levon Manning, Jr., 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 November 13, 2024, and the appeal period
expired on January 13, 2025. On March 17, 2025, Manning filed a document that we have
liberally construed as a notice of appeal.* Because Manning 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 Manning 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).
Although Manning’s notice appears to reference Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), we do not
construe it as a motion to extend the appeal period, as it was filed outside the statutory time
period for seeking such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c) (permitting extension of appeal
period “upon motion filed not later than 30 days after the expiration of the time otherwise
set for bringing appeal”); see also Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) (giving effect to § 2107(c));
Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chicago, 583 U.S. 17, 25-27 (2017) (explaining
that statutory time limits under Rule 4(a) are jurisdictional).

-- 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 --