Henry Olsen v. Ronald Angelone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999526900-2]. Originating case number: 7:01-cv-00310-JCT. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999589461]. Mailed to: Henry Olsen. [15-6069]

Appeal: 15-6069

Doc: 11

Filed: 05/26/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6069

HENRY CHRISTIAN OLSEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RONALD J. ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:01-cv-00310-JCT)

Submitted:

May 21, 2015

Decided:

May 26, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Christian Olsen, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6069

Doc: 11

Filed: 05/26/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Henry Christian Olsen seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

denying

his

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

60(b)

motion

for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
Parties

are

accorded

30

days

We dismiss the appeal.
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).

The district court entered its final order on November 13,
2014.
and

Olsen filed his notice of appeal on December 27, 2014, *

did

period.

not

obtain

an

extension

or

reopening

of

the

appeal

Accordingly, Olsen’s notice of appeal, filed more than

30 days after the denial of his Rule 60 motion to reconsider the
denial

of

relief

on

his

§

2254

petition,

was

untimely.

Accordingly, we dismiss Olsen’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
We

deny

Olsen’s

motion

for

appointment

*

of

counsel

and

we

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal, December 27, 2014, 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

Appeal: 15-6069

Doc: 11

dispense

with

contentions

are

Filed: 05/26/2015

oral

argument

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3