US v. Lemonze Ford, No. 08-8041 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 22, 2008.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8041 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. LEMONZE E. FORD, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (7:03-cr-01094-HFF-14; 7:06-cv-02148-HFF) Submitted: September 11, 2009 Decided: October 9, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lemonze E. Ford, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lemonze E. Ford seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. In a civil case, when the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty 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 requirement of mandatory and jurisdictional. a timely notice of appeal is See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007); United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009) (discussing Bowles and the appeal periods under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)). The district court s order was filed and entered on its docket on July 10, 2008. undated notice expiration of of the appeal The district court received Ford s on sixty-day excusable neglect period. September appeal 22, period, 2008, but after the within the Because Ford moved for an extension of time pursuant to Rule 4(a)(5), we remanded this case to the district court to determine whether Ford could demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the 2 appeal period. On remand, the district court found that Ford had not established excusable neglect or good cause. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in making this determination. Because appeal period the based district on court excusable declined neglect or dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before to good extend cause, the we We dispense with contentions the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
