Gause v. Weldon ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-7217
    REN ABLE GAUSE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    WILLIE WELDON, Warden; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON,
    Attorney General of the State of South
    Carolina,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-98-1226-6-13AK)
    Submitted:   December 16, 1999         Decided:     December 29, 1999
    Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
    cuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ren Able Gause, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy
    Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Ren Able Gause seeks to appeal the district court’s order dis-
    missing his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2254
     (West 1994 & Supp. 1999) petition.
    We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Gause’s
    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, see Fed. R. App.
    P. 4(b)(1), 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. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 
    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 Decem-
    ber 2, 1998.   Gause’s notice of appeal was filed on September 2,
    1999.*   Because Gause failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
    to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny
    a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
    *
    Under Houston v. Lack, 
    487 U.S. 266
     (1988), the notice of
    appeal is considered filed as of the date Gause delivered it to
    prison officials for forwarding to the court. Prison officials
    stamped “Sep 02 1999" on the envelope containing the notice of
    appeal to indicate the date they received it from Gause.
    2
    quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-7217

Filed Date: 12/29/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014