Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Rondall Mixson v. Warden, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views3 pages
    Rondall Clyde Mixson appealed the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Mixson missed the 30-day deadline to file an appeal. He filed his notice of appeal on October 26, 2012, over a year after the district court denied his petition on September 30, 2011. Without a timely filed appeal, the Fourth Circuit did not have jurisdiction to consider the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-03-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-7907

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Rondall Clyde Mixson appealed the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Mixson missed the 30-day deadline to file an appeal. He filed his notice of appeal on October 26, 2012, over a year after the district court denied his petition on September 30, 2011. Without a timely filed appeal, the Fourth Circuit did not have jurisdiction to consider the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views3 pages

    Rondall Mixson v. Warden, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rondall Clyde Mixson appealed the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Mixson missed the 30-day deadline to file an appeal. He filed his notice of appeal on October 26, 2012, over a year after the district court denied his petition on September 30, 2011. Without a timely filed appeal, the Fourth Circuit did not have jurisdiction to consider the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-7907

    RONDALL CLYDE MIXSON, a/k/a Randall Clyde Mixson,


    Petitioner Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Glen E. Conrad, Chief
    District Judge. (7:11-cv-00308-GEC)

    Submitted:

    March 26, 2013

    Decided:

    March 28, 2013

    Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Rondall Clyde Mixson, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Conrad


    Williamson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
    Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Rondall

    Clyde

    Mixson

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts order denying relief on his 2254 (2006) petition.

    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 courts 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 courts order was entered on the docket


    on

    September

    30,

    October 26, 2012. *

    2011.

    The

    notice

    of

    appeal

    was

    filed

    on

    Because Mixson failed to file a timely notice

    of appeal or to obtain an 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

    For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date


    appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
    have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to
    the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
    (1988).

    before

    this

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like