Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06337/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06337-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles A. Birdsong
Appellant
Henry Ponton
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6337

CHARLES A. BIRDSONG,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HENRY PONTON, Warden of Nottoway Correction Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior 

District Judge. (3:14-cv-00131-JRS-RCY)

Submitted: August 25, 2016 Decided: August 30, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles A. Birdsong, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Hoehl O’Shea, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6337 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/30/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles A. Birdsong seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss 

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal 

was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded 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’s order was entered on the docket on 

March 1, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on March 1, 2016.* 

Because Birdsong 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); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988).

Appeal: 16-6337 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/30/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6337 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/30/2016 Pg: 3 of 3