Filed: Sep. 01, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6445 DONALD M. KINCH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SHERWOOD R. MCCABE, Respondent - Appellee. No. 04-6772 DONALD M. KINCH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SHERWOOD R. MCCABE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-600) Submitted: August 26, 2004 Decided: September 1, 2004 Before WIDENER and
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6445 DONALD M. KINCH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SHERWOOD R. MCCABE, Respondent - Appellee. No. 04-6772 DONALD M. KINCH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SHERWOOD R. MCCABE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-600) Submitted: August 26, 2004 Decided: September 1, 2004 Before WIDENER and S..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6445
DONALD M. KINCH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SHERWOOD R. MCCABE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 04-6772
DONALD M. KINCH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SHERWOOD R. MCCABE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-600)
Submitted: August 26, 2004 Decided: September 1, 2004
Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald M. Kinch, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Donald M. Kinch seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely and
denying a certificate of appealability. We dismiss the appeal in
No. 04-6445 for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal
was not timely filed and dismiss the appeal in 04-6772 because
Kinch does not meet the certificate of appealability requirements.
Parties are accorded thirty 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). This appeal period is “mandatory
and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr.,
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 8, 2003. The notice of appeal was signed on February
23, 2004, and filed on February 26, 2004. Because Kinch failed to
file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.
An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas
corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A
certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
- 3 -
§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). We
have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Kinch has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the district court’s
order denying a certificate of appealability.
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
- 4 -