Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06888/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06888-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donnie Ames
Appellee
Steven Lee Mahood
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6888

STEVEN LEE MAHOOD,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DONNIE AMES, Superintendent, Mount Olive Correctional Complex,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at 

Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, District Judge. (2:16-cv-01853)

Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: December 10, 2024

Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Lee Mahood, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea Nease Proper, Michael Ray Williams, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6888 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Steven Lee Mahood seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice 

of appeal was not timely filed. 

In civil cases, parties have 30 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 entered its order on March 28, 2024. Mahood filed the notice of 

appeal, at the earliest, on May 8, 2024. Because Mahood failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 

We also deny his motion for appointment of counsel.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6888 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 2 of 2