US v. Diijon Timmons, No. 11-7258 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on May 7, 2012.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7258 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DIIJON TIMMONS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:04-cr-00092-NKM-7; 3:08-cv-80066-NKM) Submitted: September 17, 2012 Decided: September 26, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Diijon Timmons, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Mitchell Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Diijon Timmons seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 2255 (West Supp. 2011). 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 June 13, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on August 17, 2011, when it was delivered to prison officials for mailing. Because Timmons failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral or reopening of the appeal period, we We deny a certificate of appealability and 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 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.
