Willard Warren v. Alvin Keller

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [998747066-2] in 11-7558.Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00247-MR-DLH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998812544] [11-7558, 12-6084]

Appeal: 11-7558

Document: 26

Date Filed: 03/19/2012

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7558

WILLARD WARREN,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
REUBEN YOUNG, Secretary, Division
CLIFFORD
JOHNSON,
Administrator,
Institution,

of Adult Correction;
Craggy
Correctional

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 12-6084

WILLARD WARREN,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
REUBEN YOUNG, Secretary, Division
CLIFFORD
JOHNSON,
Administrator,
Institution,

of Adult Correction;
Craggy
Correctional

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00247-MR-DLH)

Submitted:

March 15, 2012

Decided:

March 19, 2012

Appeal: 11-7558

Document: 26

Date Filed: 03/19/2012

Page: 2 of 4

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Sarah Jessica Farber, NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES,
INC., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorneys General,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-7558

Document: 26

Date Filed: 03/19/2012

Page: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Willard Warren seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying
an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

We affirm in

part and dismiss in part.
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.”

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

Here, the district court’s order denying habeas relief
was entered on the docket on October 11, 2011.
appeal was filed on November 21, 2011.

The notice of

Warren moved to extend

the appeal period based on his attorneys’ miscommunication in
failing to properly track the appeal period, as well as their
case load and commitments during that period.

We conclude that

the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding such
unexceptional and “run-of-the-mill inattentiveness by counsel”
insufficient to justify an enlargement of time.

See Thompson v.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 76 F.3d 530, 534-35 (4th Cir.
1996).

Accordingly,

we

affirm

the

district

denying an extension of the appeal period.
3

court’s

order

Appeal: 11-7558

Document: 26

Because

Date Filed: 03/19/2012

Warren

failed

to

Page: 4 of 4

file

a

timely

notice

of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal
period, we grant the Appellees’ motion to dismiss and dismiss
the appeal of the district court’s order denying habeas relief.
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.

AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4