US v. Robert Stencil - Affirmation of Recusal Denial, Dismissal of Appeal

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH C IRCUIT No. 24-7022 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT LESLIE ST ENCIL, Defendant - Appella nt. Appeal from the Unite d States District Court for the Western D istrict of North Carolin a, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., Distric t Judge. (3:16- cr -0022 1-MOC-DCK- 1; 3:22 - cv - 00625-MOC) Submitted: Feb ru ary 26, 2026 Decided: March 2, 2026 Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLE BAUM, Circuit Judge s, and FLOYD, Senior Circui t Judge. Affirmed in part and di smissed by unpublishe d per curiam opinio n. Robert Leslie Stencil, Appellant Pro Se. Je remy Ray mond Sanders, Crimin al Division, UNITED STATES DE PARTMENT OF JUST ICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding prec edent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Robert Leslie Stencil seeks to appeal the district cour t’s order s denying and dismissing Stencil’s 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 motion, denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider, and denyin g his motion for re cusal. To the extent Stencil seeks to appeal the denial of his § 2255 motio n and his Rule 59(e) motion, we la ck jurisdictio n over the a ppeal because the no tice of appeal was not timely filed. Wh en the United States or its officer or agency is a part y in a civil ca se, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district c ourt’s final judgment or orde r, Fed. R. Ap p. P. 4(a)(1)(B), un less the distr ict 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 noti ce of appeal in a civ il case is a jurisd ictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 20 5, 214 (2007). The district court enter ed its order denying and dismissin g Stencil’s § 2255 motion on May 8, 202 3, and it entered its order denying Stencil’s Fed. R. Ci v. P. 59(e) motion on August 1, 2023. Accordingly, the appeal peri od as to these orde rs expired on October 2, 2023. Stencil filed the notice of appeal o n October 1, 2024. 1 Because Stencil failed to file a timely notice of appe al or to obtain an extension or r eopening of th e appeal period, we lack jurisdiction over t his portion of the a ppeal. 1 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date ap pearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date Stencil could have delivered the notice to prison officia ls for mailing to the court. F ed. R. App. P. 4(c) (1); Houston v. Lack, 4 87 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

3 Stencil’s appeal is time ly as to the denial of h is motion for recusal. Our review o f the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying that motion. 2 See Unit ed States v. Cher ry, 330 F.3d 65 8, 665 (4th Cir. 2003) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we deny Stencil’s motion for assignment of counsel, aff irm the denial of Stencil’s motion for recusal, and dismiss the remainder of the a ppeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ad equately presented in the materials before this co urt and argument w ould not aid the decisi onal process. DISMISSED IN PART AFFIRMED IN PART 2 A certificate of appea lability is not requi red to appeal the denial of a motion f or recusal. See Harbison v. Bell, 556 U. S. 180, 183 (2009); United States v. McRae, 79 3 F.3d 392, 397- 400 (4th Cir. 2015).