Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Edward James Egan v. Honorable Glen Conrad, 4th Cir. (2011)
Edward James Egan v. Honorable Glen Conrad, 4th Cir. (2011)
No. 11-6470
No. 11-6471
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge; James C. Turk, Senior District Judge.
(7:11-cv-00004sgw-mfu; 7:11-cv-00040-jct-mfu)
Submitted:
Decided:
GREGORY,
Circuit
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
PER CURAIM:
In these consolidated appeals, Edward James Egan, Sr.,
seeks
to
appeal
the
district
28 U.S.C.
2254
(2006)
courts
petition,
order
appeals
dismissing
the
courts
his
order
[M]atter
courts
(No.
order
11-6470),
treating
and
his
seeks
to
self-styled
appeal
the
Notice
and
P.
2254
60(b)
(Egans
petition,
and
Rule
60(b)
dismissing
motion)
it
as
on
successive
that
basis.
(No. 11-6471).
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
courts
order
dismissing
Egans
2254
petition
The
was
order
denying
Egans
2254
petition
for
lack
of
jurisdiction.
With respect to Egans appeal of the district courts
order
denying
his
Motion
for
Appearance
to
Testify
in
(W.D.
Va.
Feb.
11,
2011).
Accordingly,
in
appeal
No.
Egans
to
Rule
Egans
finding
appeal
60(b)
motion,
that
No.
11-6471,
motion
however,
prior
as
the
a
district
successive
challenged
2254
petition
the
was
court
2254
district
untimely.
See Gonzalez
v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535-36 & n.7 (2005); United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206-08 (4th Cir. 2003).
order
denying
Rule
60(b)
motion,
Egan
To appeal an
must
establish
the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266, 276 (1988).
(2006);
Reid
v.
Angelone,
See 28 U.S.C.
369
F.3d
363,
369
the
merits,
demonstrating
district
that
courts
debatable
or
prisoner
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
satisfies
Slack
jurists
this
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
standard
find
constitutional
529
U.S.
by
that
the
claims
is
473,
484
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Egan has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, in
and
legal
contentions
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
the
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.