William Karampour v. Bryan Watson

Filing 920081223

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7270 WILLIAM CLYDE KARAMPOUR, Petitioner - Appellant, v. BRYAN WATSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:07-cv-00308-GEC-MFU) Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 23, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Clyde Karampour, Appellant Pro Se. III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF Virginia, for Appellee. Robert H. Anderson, VIRGINIA, Richmond, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Clyde Karampour seeks to appeal the district court's order denying 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). is "mandatory and jurisdictional." Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) This appeal period Browder v. Dir., Dep't of (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court's order was entered on the docket on December 14, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed, at the Because Karampour failed to file a earliest, on July 10, 2008. timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. oral argument because in the the facts and legal before We dispense with contentions the court are and adequately presented materials argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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?