Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07521/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07521-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Corey E. Johnson
Appellant
Loretta K. Kelly
Appellee
United States of America

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7521

COREY E. JOHNSON,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

LORETTA K. KELLY, Warden, Sussex I State Prison,

 Respondent – Appellee,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (3:07-cv-00731-JRS)

Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: February 22, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and 

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey E. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Appeal: 16-7521 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7521 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Corey E. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying Johnson’s motions for reconsideration of 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 

March 25, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on October 27, 

2016.* Because Johnson 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 

 * 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: 16-7521 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 3 of 4
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7521 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 4 of 4