Burnice Hinnant, Jr. v. State of North Carolina


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7073 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/02/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7073 BURNICE ANTWON HINNANT, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?