US v. Decarlos Wright, No. 14-7143 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7143 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DECARLOS ANTONIO WRIGHT, a/k/a Carlos Wright, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:12-cr-00170-H-2; 5:13-cv-00342-H) Submitted: August 31, 2015 Decided: September 10, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Decarlos Antonio Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Tobin Webb Lathan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Decarlos court’s order Antonio Wright adopting the seeks to appeal recommendation of the the district magistrate judge and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and the order denying his motion for reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal. First, Wright did not timely appeal the district court’s order denying his § 2255 motion. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 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). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order denying Wright’s § 2255 motion was entered on the docket on April 7, 2014. Because Wright did not file his motion for reconsideration within 28 days of that order, his motion did not toll the 60-day appeal period. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Therefore, because appeal obtain Wright an failed extension to or file a reopening timely of the notice appeal of period, or his notice of appeal, filed on July 28, 2014, was untimely as to the 2 order denying his § 2255 motion, and we dismiss the appeal of the § 2255 order for lack of jurisdiction. Wright’s appeal is timely as to the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. confine brief. our review to the issues See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). challenge the reconsideration. basis for However, on appeal, we raised in the appellant’s Wright’s informal brief does not the district court’s denial of Because Wright has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order, he fails to demonstrate that the district court’s denial of reconsideration is debatable. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the order denying reconsideration. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal of both orders. We dispense with oral argument 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
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.
