Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07333/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07333-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Theodis Beck
Appellee
Hermenegildo Rico Martinez
Appellant
Sandy Thomas
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7333

HERMENEGILDO RICO MARTINEZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT L.C.I. SANDY THOMAS; THEODIS BECK,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen,

Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00177-GCM)

Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hermenegildo Rico Martinez, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Babb, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7333 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/21/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Hermenegildo Rico Martinez seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition 

as untimely. 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 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on June 19, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on September 

2, 2014.* Because Martinez 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 

 * 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); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 

276 (1988).

Appeal: 14-7333 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/21/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7333 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/21/2015 Pg: 3 of 3