US v. Sanchez McPherson, No. 14-7033 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7033 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SANCHEZ OZELL MCPHERSON, a/k/a Delano Jacob McPherson, a/k/a Chez, a/k/a Delano MacPherson, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:09-cr-01348-PMD-1; 2:13-cv-00641-PMD) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 25, 2014 Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sanchez Ozell McPherson, Appellant Pro Se. Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, for Appellee. Sean South Kittrell, Carolina, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sanchez Ozell McPherson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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 “[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 January 21, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on July 1, 2014. * Because McPherson failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal and deny his motion for appointment of counsel. We * dispense with oral argument 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 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3