US v. Thomas Brown, No. 13-6473 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6473 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. THOMAS MONTRIL BROWN, a/k/a Sparks, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:05-cr-00770-TLW-1; 4:08-cv-70050-TLW) Submitted: September 18, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Montril Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas court s order Montril denying Brown relief seeks on his U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013). to appeal motion the filed district under 28 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 September 30, March 14, 2013. * 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on Because Brown failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny the motion for appointment of * 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 counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.