US v. Cornell McClure, No. 16-6747 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on November 2, 2018.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6747 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CORNELL WINFREI MCCLURE, a/k/a Droopy, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:01-cr-00367-DKC-1; 8:08-cv-01830-DKC) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 21, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cornell Winfrei McClure, Appellant Pro Se. Bryan E. Foreman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, James Marton Trusty, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cornell Winfrei McClure 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 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 was entered on the docket on August 10, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on May 3, 2016. Because McClure failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before or reopening of the appeal period, we We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
