Ulysses Harcum v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999632052-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999628990-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00267-GBL-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999681536]. Mailed to: Ulysses M. Harcum. [15-7108]

Appeal: 15-7108

Doc: 15

Filed: 10/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7108

ULYSSES M. HARCUM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:15-cv-00267-GBL-JFA)

Submitted:

October 15, 2015

Decided:

October 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ulysses M. Harcum, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7108

Doc: 15

Filed: 10/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ulysses

M.

Harcum

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition

for

failure

to

exhaust

state

court

remedies.

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
March 31, 2015.
2015. *

The notice of appeal was filed on June 23,

Although a statement in the notice appeal, liberally

construed, suggests Harcum may have been seeking an extension of
time to appeal, the district court lacked the authority to grant
such an extension.

See Hensley v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.,

651 F.2d 226, 228 (4th Cir. 1981) (noting expiration of time
*

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

Appeal: 15-7108

Doc: 15

Filed: 10/20/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

limits in Rule 4 deprives court of jurisdiction); see also Fed.
R. App. P. 26(b)(1) (noting that court may not extend appeal
period, except as provided by Rule 4).

Because Harcum 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 Harcum’s motion to appoint counsel, and
dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3