Anton Weaver v. Director of Virginia Departmen

Filing 920090903

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6898

ANTON WEAVER, Petitioner ­ Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent ­ Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:07-cv-00461-HEH)

Submitted:

August 26, 2009

Decided: September 3, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Judges.

Chief

Judge,

and

GREGORY

and

SHEDD,

Circuit

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anton Weaver, Appellant Pro Se. Karri B. Atwood, Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Anton Weaver seeks to appeal the district court's

order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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). "[T]he timely

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement." The district Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). court's order was entered on the docket on

September 26, 2008. 2009. *

The notice of appeal was filed on May 4,

Because Weaver failed to file a timely notice of appeal

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions the court are and adequately presented in the would not aid the

materials

argument

decisional process. DISMISSED For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 2
*