# United States v. Thurman Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 14, 2012 · 480 F. App'x 729

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/808535

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thurman Dominick BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 14, 2012
- **Citations:** 480 F. App'x 729
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Shedd, Agee
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/808535

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7040

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THURMAN DOMINICK BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:07-cr-00479-WMN-1; 1:11-cv-03010-WMN)

Submitted: September 11, 2012 Decided: September 14, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thurman Dominick Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton
Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Rachel Miller Yasser,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Thurman Dominick Brown seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp. 2012) motion. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 4(a)(1)(B), a notice of appeal in a civil case in

which the United States is a party must be filed with the

district court within sixty days after judgment is entered.

“[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 may extend the filing time if “a

party so moves no later than 30 days after the time prescribed

by . . . Rule 4(a) expires” and the party shows excusable

neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A).

The district court denied Brown’s § 2255 motion on

March 27, 2012. Therefore, Brown had until May 29, 2012, * to

file a notice of appeal. Brown, however, filed his undated

notice of appeal, at the earliest, on June 12, 2012, fourteen

days after the expiration of the sixty-day appeal period. We

liberally construe Brown’s notice of appeal, which he filed

within the thirty-day excusable neglect period, as a request for

an extension of the appeal period. Accordingly, we remand this

*
The sixtieth day fell on Saturday, May 26, and Monday, May
28, was Memorial Day. See Fed. R. App. 26(a).

2
case to the district court for the limited purpose of enabling

the court to determine whether Brown has shown excusable neglect

or good cause warranting an extension of time to appeal. The

record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for

further consideration.

REMANDED

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/808535. Public record. Not legal advice.