United States of America v. Steven Kelly

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6562
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
STEVEN KELLY,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:22-hc-02025-BO)
Submitted: March 26, 2026 Decided: March 31, 2026
Before RICHARDSON and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Peter M. Wood, LAW OFFICE OF PETER WOOD, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Genna Danelle Petre, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Steven James Kelly seeks to appeal the district court’s order committing him to the
custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246. 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 June 30, 2023, and the appeal period expired
on August 29, 2023. Kelly filed the notice of appeal on June 15, 2025.* Because Kelly
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 Kelly could have delivered the notice to officials at his institution
for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276
(1988).

-- 2 of 2 --