Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Cleveland v. Dobson, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Howard Cleveland Jr.'s appeal of a district court order denying his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. §2254. The court found that Cleveland's notice of appeal was not filed within the mandatory 30-day period after the district court entered its judgment, nor did he obtain an extension. As the notice of appeal was untimely, the appeals court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-10-12 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7191

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Howard Cleveland Jr.'s appeal of a district court order denying his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. §2254. The court found that Cleveland's notice of appeal was not filed within the mandatory 30-day period after the district court entered its judgment, nor did he obtain an extension. As the notice of appeal was untimely, the appeals court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views2 pages

    Cleveland v. Dobson, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Howard Cleveland Jr.'s appeal of a district court order denying his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. §2254. The court found that Cleveland's notice of appeal was not filed within the mandatory 30-day period after the district court entered its judgment, nor did he obtain an extension. As the notice of appeal was untimely, the appeals court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 01-7191

    HOWARD CLEVELAND, JR.,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    STEVE DOBSON,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-00-641-1)

    Submitted:

    October 4, 2001

    Decided:

    October 12, 2001

    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Howard Cleveland, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
    III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Howard Cleveland, Jr., seeks to appeal the district courts
    order and judgment denying relief on his petition filed under 28
    U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001).

    We dismiss the appeal

    for lack of jurisdiction because Appellants notice of appeal was


    not timely filed.
    Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district
    courts 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).
    jurisdictional.

    This appeal period is mandatory and

    Browder v. Director, Dept of Corrections, 434

    U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.
    220, 229 (1960)).
    The district courts order was entered on the docket on May 9,
    2001.

    Clevelands notice of appeal was filed on July 4, 2001, the

    earliest date Cleveland could have submitted the notice to prison


    officials for mailing.

    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

    You might also like