Knight v. York , 32 F. App'x 118 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 01-7760
    KENNETH M. KNIGHT, SR.,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    MICHAEL YORK, Superintendent    of   Albermarle
    Correctional Institution,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District       Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham.        James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CA-01-274-01-1)
    Submitted:   February 5, 2002              Decided:   April 16, 2002
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kenneth M. Knight, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith,
    Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Kenneth M. Knight, Sr., seeks to appeal the dismissal of his
    petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2254
     (West 1994 & Supp. 2001).         The district court’s final order
    was entered on July 20, 2001.          Knight filed a notice of appeal
    dated October 5, 2001, well after his time for noting an appeal had
    expired under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).        In this document Knight
    claimed he did not receive notice of entry of final judgment until
    September 24, 2001.      Even if the notice of appeal were considered
    as a motion for extension of time under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6),
    cf. Shah v. Hutto, 
    722 F.2d 1167
    , 1168-69 (4th Cir. 1983), it was
    filed more than seven days after the date Knight claims to have
    received notice of the district court’s order and is, therefore,
    untimely.     See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(A); Hensley v. Chesapeake &
    O. Ry. Co., 
    651 F.2d 226
    , 228 (4th Cir. 1981).                Because we are
    without jurisdiction, we deny a certificate of appealability and
    dismiss the appeal.      See Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 
    434 U.S. 257
    , 264 (1978).        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: 01-7760

Citation Numbers: 32 F. App'x 118

Judges: King, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Williams

Filed Date: 4/16/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023