Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hurt v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Narayan Sahefd Hurt for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed Hurt's habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as untimely. Hurt's notice of appeal was filed one day late based on the 30-day deadline. As such, the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-06-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6645

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Narayan Sahefd Hurt for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed Hurt's habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as untimely. Hurt's notice of appeal was filed one day late based on the 30-day deadline. As such, the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Hurt v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Narayan Sahefd Hurt for lack of jurisdiction. The district court had dismissed Hurt's habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as untimely. Hurt's notice of appeal was filed one day late based on the 30-day deadline. As such, the Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-6645

    NARAYAN SAHEFD HURT,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia
    Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
    Judge. (CA-03-413-2)

    Submitted:

    June 10, 2004

    Decided:

    June 21, 2004

    Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Narayan Sahefd Hurt, Appellant Pro Se.


    Steven Andrew Witmer,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Narayan Sahefd Hurt seeks to appeal the district courts
    order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
    2254 (2000).

    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).

    This appeal period is mandatory

    and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Dept of Corr., 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
    March 2, 2004.

    According Hurt the benefit of Fed. R. App. P.

    4(c)(1), the notice of appeal was filed no earlier than April 2,


    2004, one day late.

    Because Hurt failed to file a timely notice of

    appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,


    we dismiss the appeal.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like