Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0905-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Randolph GRANDISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 12-6652.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 26, 2012.
    Decided: Aug. 2, 2012.
    William Randolph Grandison, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Randolph Grandison seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) 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 court’s 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on February 24, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on April 6, 2012. Because Grandison 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 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED. 
      
       Although the district court erroneously informed Grandison that he had sixty — rather than thirty — days to appeal, we cannot excuse his untimely filing under the unique circumstances doctrine. Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360.