Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hinton v. Pendergraph, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    1) Charles Hinton sought to appeal a district court order dismissing his habeas corpus petition. 2) Hinton's notice of appeal was filed outside the 30-day period required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 3) Because the notice of appeal was untimely, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-06-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-7755

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Charles Hinton sought to appeal a district court order dismissing his habeas corpus petition. 2) Hinton's notice of appeal was filed outside the 30-day period required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 3) Because the notice of appeal was untimely, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    Hinton v. Pendergraph, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Charles Hinton sought to appeal a district court order dismissing his habeas corpus petition. 2) Hinton's notice of appeal was filed outside the 30-day period required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 3) Because the notice of appeal was untimely, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 00-7755

    CHARLES E. HINTON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JIM PENDERGRAPH, Sheriff; MICHAEL F. EASLEY,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-00-331-3-1-MU)

    Submitted:

    May 31, 2001

    Decided:

    June 6, 2001

    Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Charles E. Hinton, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles E. Hinton seeks to appeal the district courts order
    dismissing his 2254 motion.

    We dismiss the appeal for lack of

    jurisdiction because Hintons 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
    September 6, 2000.
    ber 24, 2000.

    Hintons notice of appeal was filed on Octo-

    Because Hinton failed to file a timely notice of

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


    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