Filed: Jun. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7755 CHARLES E. HINTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JIM PENDERGRAPH, Sheriff; MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-331-3-1-MU) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7755 CHARLES E. HINTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JIM PENDERGRAPH, Sheriff; MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-331-3-1-MU) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7755
CHARLES E. HINTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JIM PENDERGRAPH, Sheriff; MICHAEL F. EASLEY,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-00-331-3-1-MU)
Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001
Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles E. Hinton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles E. Hinton seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his § 2254 motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because Hinton’s notice of appeal was not timely
filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district
court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(1), 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). This appeal period is “mandatory and
jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,
434
U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson,
361 U.S.
220, 229 (1960)).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
September 6, 2000. Hinton’s notice of appeal was filed on Octo-
ber 24, 2000. Because Hinton failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2