UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6203

MICHAEL ANTWUAN WILLIAMS, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

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

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

Judge. (3:10-cv-00808-JRS) 

Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: April 29, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael Antwuan Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Alice Theresa 

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

Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Michael Antwuan Williams 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 thirty days after 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). “Lack of notice of 

the entry does not affect the time for appeal or relieve—or 

authorize the court to relieve—a party for failing to appeal 

within the time allowed, except as allowed by Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure (4)(a).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d)(2). 

Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure permits the reopening of the appeal period if a party 

has not received notice of the judgment or order within 

twenty-one days after entry, but the motion requesting such 

relief must be filed within 180 days after entry of the judgment

or order or fourteen days after the party received notice of the 

judgment or order, whichever is earlier. Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(6). The time requirements of Rule 4(a) are mandatory and 

jurisdictional. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 208-14 (2007); 

Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264-65 (1978). 
3

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on August 30, 2011. Williams delivered a notice of appeal and 

motion to reopen the appeal period to prison officials for 

mailing on January 27, 2014. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); 

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). In the notice and 

motion, Williams claimed he was not “properly notified” of the 

district court’s denial decision in time to file a timely notice 

of appeal. However, the 180-day reopening period expired well 

before Williams filed his notice of appeal and motion to reopen. 

Thus, Williams is not eligible for reopening of the appeal 

period. Nunley v. City of Los Angeles, 52 F.3d 792, 794-95 

(9th Cir. 1995); Hensley v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 651 F.2d 

226, 228 (4th Cir. 1981). 

Accordingly, because Williams failed to file a timely 

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period 

and is not eligible for 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 are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED