Poole v. Leath Correctional Institution , 235 F. App'x 100 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6467
    KIMBERLY RENEE POOLE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    LEATH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Warden; HENRY
    MCMASTER, Attorney General for the State of
    South Carolina,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
    (0:03-cv-03499-RBH)
    Submitted: July 24, 2007                    Decided:   July 31, 2007
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William Isaac Diggs, Chief Attorney, DIGGS, DIGGS & AXELROD, Myrtle
    Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
    Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Kimberly Renee Poole seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order dismissing her 
    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 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).           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
    January 31, 2007.       Poole’s counsel filed the notice of appeal on
    March 27, 2007.        Because Poole failed to file a timely notice of
    appeal or to 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: 07-6467

Citation Numbers: 235 F. App'x 100

Judges: Wilkinson, Traxler, Duncan

Filed Date: 7/31/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024