Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06797/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06797-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Secretary of Corrections
Appellee
Robert W. Smith
Appellee
Stanley Lorenzo Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6797

STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT W. SMITH, Supt.; SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS, Theodis 

Beck,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00757-TDS-RAE)

Submitted: June 25, 2010 Decided: July 15, 2010

Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Lorenzo Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe 

DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Carla Hollis, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-6797 Doc: 46 Filed: 07/15/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Lorenzo Williams seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and 

denying relief on Williams’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

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 October 28, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on April 

20, 2009. Because Williams failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal 

period, we dismiss the appeal. Williams’ pending motions for a 

transcript at Government expense, for a certificate of 

appealability, to proceed in forma pauperis, and to expedite the 

appeal are denied. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

Appeal: 09-6797 Doc: 46 Filed: 07/15/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-6797 Doc: 46 Filed: 07/15/2010 Pg: 3 of 3