US v. Emilio Bautista-Teran, No. 13-6030 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6030 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. EMILIO BAUTISTA-TERAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00177-CMC-6; 3:09-cv-70068-CMC) Submitted: May 22, 2013 Decided: June 24, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emilio Bautista-Teran, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Mark C. Moore, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Emilio court s order Bautista-Teran dismissing his § 2255 (West Supp. 2012). seeks to motion appeal filed the district 28 U.S.C.A. under 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 12, 2009. December 20, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). Because Bautista-Teran failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the authorization appeal. pursuant To to the extent Bautista-Teran 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2006) successive § 2255 motion, such motion is denied. moves to for file a We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 2 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.
