Ronald Carter v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999617978-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999634129-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00500-TSE-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999710253]. Mailed to: Ronald M. Carter WALLENS RIDGE STATE PRISON P. O. Box 759 Big Stone Gap, VA 24219. [15-7056]

Appeal: 15-7056

Doc: 12

Filed: 12/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7056

RONALD M. CARTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Corrections,

Director

of

Virginia

Department

of

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis III, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00500-TSE-JFA)

Submitted:

October 16, 2015

Decided:

December 2, 2015

Before KING, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald M. Carter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7056

Doc: 12

Filed: 12/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ronald M. Carter seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as untimely.

We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice
of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties

are

accorded

30

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).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on May
26, 2015.

The notice of appeal was filed on June 29, 2015. *

Because Carter failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Carter’s motion for a
certificate

of

appealability

as

unnecessary,

and

dismiss

the

appeal.

*

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
(1988).

2

Appeal: 15-7056

Doc: 12

We

note

Filed: 12/02/2015

that,

even

if

Pg: 3 of 3

we

construed

Carter’s

notice

of

appeal as a request for an extension of time so as to resolve
the timeliness issue, we would not grant him a certificate of
appealability.

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) (2012).

When the district court

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard
by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
district
debatable

court’s
or

assessment

wrong.

of

Slack

the

constitutional

v.

McDaniel,

529

claims

U.S.

473,

is
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

the

484-85.

We

have

independently

reviewed

record

and

conclude that Carter has not made the requisite showing.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3