United States of America v. David Hill

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6994
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID HILL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:01-cr-00191-MSN-1; 1:04-cv-
1249)
Submitted: June 25, 2026 Decided: June 30, 2026
Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Hill, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
David Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on various
postjudgment motions filed in Hill’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding.1 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 February 26, 2025, and the appeal period
expired on April 28, 2025. Hill filed the notice of appeal on November 5, 2025.2 Because
Hill failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.
1 In this court, Hill asks that we remand this matter to the district court for
consideration of a motion that Hill suggests should have been docketed and to amend his
declarations to his informal brief. (ECF Nos. 19-20, 22). While we grant the motions to
amend, we deny the motion to remand.
2 For purposes of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of
appeal is the earliest date Hill 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 --