Hurt v. Johnson , 100 F. App'x 943 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-6645
    NARAYAN SAHEFD HURT,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia
    Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
    Judge. (CA-03-413-2)
    Submitted:   June 10, 2004                  Decided:   June 21, 2004
    Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Narayan Sahefd Hurt, Appellant Pro Se.       Steven Andrew Witmer,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Narayan Sahefd Hurt seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).       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. Director, 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
    March 2, 2004.         According Hurt the benefit of Fed. R. App. P.
    4(c)(1), the notice of appeal was filed no earlier than April 2,
    2004, one day late.      Because Hurt 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: 04-6645

Citation Numbers: 100 F. App'x 943

Judges: Hamilton, Per Curiam, Traxler, Williams

Filed Date: 6/21/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023