Edward James Egan v. Honorable Glen Conrad
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:11-cv-00004-sgw-mfu Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998639973]. Mailed to: Egan. [11-6470, 11-6471]
Appeal: 11-6470
Document: 19
Date Filed: 07/26/2011
Page: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6470
EDWARD JAMES EGAN, SR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HONORABLE GLEN CONRAD, United States District Court,
Respondent – Appellee.
No. 11-6471
EDWARD JAMES EGAN, SR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HONORABLE GLEN CONRAD, United States District Court;
HONORABLE SAMUEL G. WILSON, United States District Court,
Respondents – Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge; James C. Turk, Senior District Judge.
(7:11-cv-00004sgw-mfu; 7:11-cv-00040-jct-mfu)
Submitted:
July 21, 2011
Decided:
July 26, 2011
Appeal: 11-6470
Document: 19
Date Filed: 07/26/2011
Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.
GREGORY,
Page: 2 of 6
Circuit
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
No. 11-6470 dismissed in part, affirmed in part; No. 11-6471
dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward James Egan, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 11-6470
Document: 19
Date Filed: 07/26/2011
Page: 3 of 6
PER CURAIM:
In these consolidated appeals, Edward James Egan, Sr.,
seeks
to
appeal
the
district
28 U.S.C.
§ 2254
(2006)
court’s
petition,
order
appeals
dismissing
the
court’s
his
order
denying his self-styled “Motion for Appearance to Testify in a
[P]ending
district
[M]atter”
court’s
(No.
order
11-6470),
treating
and
his
seeks
to
self-styled
appeal
the
“Notice
and
Motion” for a writ of error coram nobis and pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ.
P.
§ 2254
60(b)
(“Egan’s
petition,
and
Rule
60(b)
dismissing
motion”)
it
as
on
a
successive
that
basis.
(No. 11-6471).
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.”
district
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
court’s
order
dismissing
Egan’s
entered on the docket on January 12, 2011.
was filed on February 25, 2011. *
*
§ 2254
petition
The
was
The notice of appeal
Because Egan failed to file a
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
(Continued)
3
Appeal: 11-6470
Document: 19
Date Filed: 07/26/2011
Page: 4 of 6
timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal of the district
court’s
order
denying
Egan’s
§ 2254
petition
for
lack
of
jurisdiction.
With respect to Egan’s appeal of the district court’s
order
denying
his
“Motion
for
Appearance
to
Testify
in
a
[P]ending [M]atter,” we have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
Egan v. Conrad, No. 7:11-cv-00004-sgw-
by the district court.
mfu
(W.D.
Va.
Feb.
11,
2011).
Accordingly,
in
appeal
No.
11-6470, we dismiss in part and affirm in part.
Turning
construed
petition.
court’s
Egan’s
to
Rule
Egan’s
finding
appeal
60(b)
motion,
that
No.
a
11-6471,
motion
however,
prior
as
the
a
district
successive
challenged
§ 2254
petition
the
was
court
§ 2254
district
untimely.
Because the motion did not directly attack Egan’s conviction or
sentence, but rather asserted a defect in the collateral review
process, it constituted a true Rule 60(b) motion.
See Gonzalez
v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535-36 & n.7 (2005); United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206-08 (4th Cir. 2003).
order
denying
a
Rule
60(b)
motion,
Egan
To appeal an
must
establish
the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266, 276 (1988).
4
Appeal: 11-6470
Document: 19
Date Filed: 07/26/2011
Page: 5 of 6
entitlement to a certificate of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A)
(2006);
Reid
v.
Angelone,
See 28 U.S.C.
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.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
on
the
merits,
demonstrating
district
that
court’s
debatable
or
a
When the district court denies relief
prisoner
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
satisfies
Slack
jurists
this
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
standard
find
constitutional
529
U.S.
by
that
the
claims
is
473,
484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Egan has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, in
appeal No. 11-6471, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
facts
and
legal
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
5
adequately
presented
in
the
Appeal: 11-6470
Document: 19
materials
before
Date Filed: 07/26/2011
the
court
and
Page: 6 of 6
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
No. 11-6470, DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART
No. 11-6471, DISMISSED
6
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?