United States v. Brandon Holman, 691 F. App'x 87

Brandon Tremayne Holman, a pro se federal prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in district court; the court denied relief and later denied a certificate of appealability (COA).
The district court’s merits decision was entered on the docket on December 8, 2016.
Holman filed a notice of appeal on March 7, 2017 (assumed timely mailed under Houston v. Lack rules for prisoners), more than 60 days after the district court’s December 8 order.
Because the United States was a party, Rule 4(a)(1)(B) required a notice of appeal within 60 days unless the district court extended or reopened the appeal period under the applicable rules; Holman did not obtain any extension or reopening.
The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Holman failed to show the district court’s procedural or substantive rulings were debatable, so a COA should not issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal from district court’s § 2255 denial	Holman appealed; contends notice of appeal was filed (assumed mailed date)	Government contends appeal was filed after the 60‑day limit and no extension/reopening was obtained	Appeal of December 8, 2016 order dismissed as untimely under Rule 4(a)(1)(B) and Bowles (timely filing is jurisdictional)
Certificate of appealability for denial of COA motion	Holman seeks COA to appeal denial of § 2255 relief	Government argues Holman failed to make substantial showing of constitutional denial or that procedural ruling is debatable	COA denied; Holman did not meet Slack standard (when district denies on merits or procedure)

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (timely filing of notice of appeal in civil case is jurisdictional)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for COA when district court denies relief on merits or procedural grounds)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (elaboration on what constitutes a substantial showing for COA)
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (prisoner mailbox rule for computing filing dates)