US v. Hinton
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. GREGORY HINTON, Defendant Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:00-cr-0180-GBL)
February 2, 2009
February 20, 2009
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Hinton, Appellant Pro Se. OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Appellee.
Dabney P. Langhorne, OFFICE Alexandria, Virginia, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Gregory Hinton seeks to appeal several orders entered by the district court. He first seeks to appeal the district
court's order granting his motion to reopen the time period for filing an appeal of the denial of his second Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying relief motion. on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008)
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because
the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court's final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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). appeal period is "mandatory and jurisdictional." This
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 denying Hinton's second
Rule 60(b) motion was entered on the docket on September 19, 2006. The court reopened the appeal period for fourteen days in Hinton's notice of appeal was Because Hinton failed to
an order entered on May 4, 2007. not filed until October 2,
properly file a timely notice of appeal after he obtained a 2
reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his appeal of the underlying
September 19, 2006 order and subsequent May 4, 2007 order. Hinton also seeks to appeal the district court's order entered August 23, 2007, denying his third Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the order denying relief on his § 2255 motion. justice or judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue
absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." this 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). by demonstrating that A prisoner satisfies jurists would
find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 record (4th and Cir. 2001). that We have independently not made reviewed the the
Accordingly, as to the appeal of the district court's August 23, 2007, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?