Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07039/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07039-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard E. Bazzle
Appellee
Sheldon G. Keener
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7039

SHELDON G. KEENER, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

RICHARD E. BAZZLE, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Patrick Michael Duffy, District 

Judge. (6:08-cv-02422-PMD) 

Submitted: January 12, 2010 Decided: January 25, 2010 

Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Sheldon G. Keener, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-7039 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/25/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Sheldon G. Keener seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing without prejudice his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2006). 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). This appeal period 

is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of 

Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. 

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on August 13, 2008. The notice of appeal was dated May 27, 

2009, and was filed on June 1, 2009. See Houston v. Lack, 487 

U.S. 266 (1988). Because Keener failed to file a timely notice 

of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal 

period, we 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

Appeal: 09-7039 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/25/2010 Pg: 2 of 2