US v. Stephen Satcher, No. 13-7469 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7469 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. STEPHEN D. SATCHER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:00-cr-00105-AW-1; 8:12-cv-01679-AW) Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 26, 2013 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen D. Satcher, Appellant Pro Se. Odessa Palmer Jackson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stephen court s order D. Satcher dismissing seeks his 2013) motion as untimely. 28 to appeal U.S.C.A. the ยง 2255 district (West Supp. 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 of jurisdictional requirement. 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 November 29, 2012. September 12, 2013. * The notice of appeal was filed on Because Satcher failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny Satcher s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * We dispense with oral 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 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
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.
