Filed: Jan. 28, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6671 ELTON LEE WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SOUTHAMPTON CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Warden; RANDOLPH H. POWELL, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-609) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 28, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit J
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6671 ELTON LEE WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SOUTHAMPTON CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Warden; RANDOLPH H. POWELL, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-609) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 28, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Ju..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6671
ELTON LEE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SOUTHAMPTON CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Warden;
RANDOLPH H. POWELL, Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-00-609)
Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 28, 2002
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elton Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Elton Lee Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his petition for habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) for failure to pay the
filing fee. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because
Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the 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 “man-
datory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Correc-
tions,
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
January 18, 2001. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on April
19, 2001. Because Appellant failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,
we 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