Jones v. Hamidullah , 207 F. App'x 360 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-7370
    WILLIE JAMES JONES,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    MATTHEW B. HAMIDULLAH, Warden; HENRY DARGAN
    MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston.   Patrick Michael Duffy, District
    Judge. (2:05-cv-2736-PMD)
    Submitted:   November 21, 2006            Decided:   December 1, 2006
    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Willie James Jones, Appellant.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Willie James Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order dismissing his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) petition.               We dismiss
    the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal
    was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after entry
    of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal,
    Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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. Dir., 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
    December 6, 2005.       The notice of appeal was executed on June 14,
    2006.   The district court improperly authorized Jones’s belated
    notice of appeal, as it was filed more than 180 days after the
    entry   of    the   district    court’s      order.   See   Fed.    R.    App.    P.
    4(a)(6)(B). Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal
    or to timely obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,
    we dismiss the appeal.         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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-7370

Citation Numbers: 207 F. App'x 360

Judges: Traxler, Duncan, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/1/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024