Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07950/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07950-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeremy Daniel Russom
Appellant
Keith Whitener
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7950

JEREMY DANIEL RUSSOM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

KEITH WHITENER, Administrator, Marion Correctional 

Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (5:14-cv-00167-FDW)

Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremy Daniel Russom, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholaos George Vlahos, 

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7950 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeremy Daniel Russom seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on 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 August 

31, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on November 29, 2015.* 

Because Russom 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 

 * 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: 15-7950 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7950 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 3 of 3