Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Faris v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Randal Faris's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had found Faris's petition untimely. The Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over Faris's appeal because his notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after the district court entered its judgment, beyond the mandatory deadline. As Faris did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, his appeal was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-05-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-6214

    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 Randal Faris's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had found Faris's petition untimely. The Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over Faris's appeal because his notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after the district court entered its judgment, beyond the mandatory deadline. As Faris did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, his appeal was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Faris v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Randal Faris's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had found Faris's petition untimely. The Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over Faris's appeal because his notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after the district court entered its judgment, beyond the mandatory deadline. As Faris did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, his appeal was dismissed.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 06-6214

    RANDAL E. FARIS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (7:05-cv-00563-JCT)
    Submitted:

    May 16, 2006

    Decided:

    May 23, 2006

    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Randal E. Faris, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Randal E. Faris seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition as untimely
    filed.

    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).
    and jurisdictional.

    This appeal period is mandatory

    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 judgment was entered on the docket
    on

    October

    25,

    January 25, 2006.

    2005.*

    The

    notice

    of

    appeal

    was

    filed

    on

    Because Faris 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

    This date gives Faris the benefit of Houston v. Lack, 487


    U.S. 266 (1988).
    - 2 -

    You might also like