US v. Harold Phillip, No. 11-6173 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6173 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HAROLD B. PHILLIPS, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:07-cr-00073-WDK-JEB-1; 2:09-cv-00098-MSD) Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 6, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold B. Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Harold court s order B. Phillips denying his seeks motion to appeal the for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2010). district filed 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 May 13, 2010. 2011.* The notice of appeal was filed on January 28, Because Phillips failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the * 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 facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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.