United States of America v. Rashaun Antonio Taylor, a/k/a Diablo, a/k/a Blo, a/k/a Bosston Blo, a/k/a Bubba

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6353
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RASHAUN ANTONIO TAYLOR, a/k/a Diablo, a/k/a Blo, a/k/a Bosston Blo, a/k/a
Bubba,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:19-cr-00036-RAJ-RJK-1; 2:23-
cv-00487-RAJ)
Submitted: January 14, 2026 Decided: March 3, 2026
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rashaun Antonio Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Rashaun Antonio Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his
motion to compel discovery to support his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. As a preliminary
matter, we deny Taylor’s motions to consolidate this appeal with another appeal and for
consideration of his claims under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Additionally,
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). “The timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (citation modified).
The district court filed the appealed-from order on January 22, 2024. Taylor filed
the notice of appeal on April 21, 2025.* Because Taylor 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 Taylor 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 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 --