US v. Creadell Hubbard, No. 19-7887 (4th Cir. 2020)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7887 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CREADELL HUBBARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:88-cr-00040-BO-1, 5:16-cv-00549BO) Submitted: April 16, 2020 Decided: April 21, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Creadell Hubbard, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Creadell Hubbard seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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 in a civil case, 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 entered its order on August 12, 2019. Hubbard filed the notice of appeal on November 28, 2019. * Because Hubbard failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date Hubbard could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 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.