Filed: Mar. 09, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7714 AUBIN LIBERTE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (0:09-cv-01343-JFA) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7714 AUBIN LIBERTE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (0:09-cv-01343-JFA) Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7714
AUBIN LIBERTE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (0:09-cv-01343-JFA)
Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 9, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aubin Liberte, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aubin Liberte seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and its
subsequent order denying his motion to alter or amend judgment,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction because the 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,
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 denying Liberte’s Rule
59(e) motion was entered on the docket on October 22, 2010. The
notice of appeal was filed on November 23, 2010. * Because
Liberte failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
* Because Liberte is incarcerated, he is deemed to have
filed the notice of appeal on the date he deposited it in the
prison mail system. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). Liberte signed
and dated his notice of appeal November 23, 2010. Because this
date is the earliest date on which Liberte could have deposited
his notice of appeal in the prison mail system, we have afforded
Liberte the presumption that he filed his notice of appeal on
November 23, 2010.
2
extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis 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
3