US v. Terrance Hodge, No. 10-6359 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6359 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. TERRANCE JERMAINE HODGE, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:08-cr-00059-BR-1; 5:09-cv-00503-BR) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrance Jermaine Hodge, Appellant Pro Se. Eric David Goulian, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terrance Jermaine Hodge seeks to appeal the district court s order denying Hodge s motion to vacate his pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010). sentence 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, 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). timely filing of a notice jurisdictional requirement. of appeal in a civil case [T]he is a Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court s order was entered on the docket on December 3, 2009. 2010. * The notice of appeal was filed on March 1, Because Hodge failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Hodge s motion for a certificate of * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 2 appealability. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court 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.