US v. Jamar Brice, No. 13-7494 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7494 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMAR BRICE, a/k/a Esco, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:03-cr-00036-FDW-9; 3:12-cv-00525-FDW) Submitted: November 19, 2013 Before WYNN and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Circuit Decided: November 22, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamar Brice, United States Cave, OFFICE Carolina, for Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Keith Michael OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jamar Brice seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. 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 [T]he case is a Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court s order was entered on the docket on November 26, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on August 26, 2013. Because Brice failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We dispense with legal contentions are before this and court argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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.