Burnice Hinnant, Jr. v. State of North Carolina
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999927137-2]. Originating case number: 5:15-hc-02283-FL. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000033988]. Mailed to: Appellant. [16-7073]
Appeal: 16-7073
Doc: 13
Filed: 03/02/2017
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7073
BURNICE ANTWON HINNANT, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:15-hc-02283-FL)
Submitted:
February 27, 2017
Decided:
March 2, 2017
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Burnice Antwon Hinnant, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-7073
Doc: 13
Filed: 03/02/2017
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Burnice Antwon Hinnant, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s
order
Hinnant’s
28
granting
U.S.C.
summary
§ 2254
judgment
(2012)
for
petition.
respondent
We
dismiss
on
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
June 27, 2016.
The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest,
on August 5, 2016. *
Because Hinnant 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 and
dismiss the appeal.
facts
and
legal
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
*
adequately
presented
in
the
The district court found that August 5, 2016, is the
earliest date the notice of appeal 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: 16-7073
Doc: 13
materials
before
Filed: 03/02/2017
this
court
Pg: 3 of 3
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
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?