US v. James Mainor, Jr., No. 11-6768 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6768 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES BRANSON MAINOR, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00121-TDS-1) Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 22, 2011 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Branson Mainor, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James district Branson court s Mainor, order Jr., accepting seeks the to appeal magistrate the judge s recommendation to deny his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion, and has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We deny Mainor s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 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 February 8, 2011. 2011. * The notice of appeal was filed on June 6, Because Mainor failed to file a timely notice of appeal * Although Mainor s notice of appeal was not filed in the district court until June 7, 2011, Mainor s notice of appeal was postmarked on June 6, 2011. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (holding that a pro se prisoner s notice of appeal is (Continued) 2 or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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 considered filed the moment it is authorities for mailing to the court). 3 delivered to prison

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.