Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08031/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08031-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfonzo Bailey
Appellant
Gene M. Johnson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-8031

ALFONZO BAILEY, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:08-cv-00842-LO-TRJ) 

Submitted: January 27, 2010 Decided: February 12, 2010 

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Alfonzo Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-8031 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/12/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
PER CURIAM: 

Alfonzo Bailey seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. We 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice 

of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties in a civil case 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. Bowles v. 

Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on July 23, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on October 15, 

2009.* Because Bailey failed to file a timely notice of appeal 

or to 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 

 

 *

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 

266 (1988). 

2 

Appeal: 09-8031 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/12/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-8031 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/12/2010 Pg: 3 of 3