US v. Jones, No. 07-6963 (4th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 11, 2008.

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6963 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY DWAYNE JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00123; 7:05-cv-00299) Submitted: November 6, 2007 Decided: November 15, 2007 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Dwayne Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Dwayne Jones seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 (2000) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded sixty days after the entry of the district court s final judgment or order to note an appeal when the United States is a party, 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). This appeal period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Dep t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court s order was entered on the docket on January 9, 2006. The notice of appeal was, at the earliest, filed on June 21, 2007. Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal and is not entitled to reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not 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.