UNITED STATES v. THOMPSON II (2021)

Andrew Lee Thompson, II, appeals the district court's order denying his motion for an extension of time to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Although the district court denied relief on the merits, we are obliged to consider, sua sponte, “not only [our] own subject matter jurisdiction but also the jurisdiction of the lower courts in a cause under review.” Feldman v. Law Enf't Assocs. Corp., 752 F.3d 339, 346 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Thompson has not filed a § 2255 motion and his motion for an extension of time did not raise any potential grounds for § 2255 relief, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. See Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 82-83 (2d Cir. 2001); United States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 163-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam); accord United States v. Asakevich, 810 F.3d 418, 419-24 (6th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of Thompson's motion.^* See United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 326, 328 (4th Cir. 2017) (“[W]e may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 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.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Because we affirm the denial of relief on jurisdictional grounds, we express no opinion as to the merits of Thompson's arguments regarding timeliness. “If or when [Thompson] actually files a § 2255 [motion], the [d]istrict [c]ourt and this court may consider his argument that such a [motion] should be considered timely.” Leon, 203 F.3d at 164.

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.