Ronald Carter v. Harold Clarke , 623 F. App'x 613 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7056
RONALD M. CARTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00500-TSE-JFA)
Submitted: October 16, 2015 Decided: December 2, 2015
Before KING, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald M. Carter, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald M. Carter seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as untimely. We
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice
of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 30 days after the 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). “[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’s order was entered on the docket on May
26, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on June 29, 2015. *
Because Carter failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Carter’s motion for a
certificate of appealability as unnecessary, and dismiss the
appeal.
* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to
the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266(1988).
2
We note that, even if we construed Carter’s notice of
appeal as a request for an extension of time so as to resolve
the timeliness issue, we would not grant him a certificate of
appealability. A certificate of appealability will not issue
absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court
denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard
by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Carter has not made the requisite showing.
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.
DISMISSED
3