Case Name: Burnice Antwon HINNANT, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-02
Citations: 678 F. App'x 158
Docket Number: No. 16-7073
Parties: Burnice Antwon HINNANT, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 678
Pages: 158–159

Head Matter:
Burnice Antwon HINNANT, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-7073
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 27, 2017
Decided: March 2, 2017
Burnice Antwon Hinnant, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Burnice Antwon Hinnant, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment for respondent on Hin-nant's 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).
The district court's order was entered on the docket on June 27, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on August 5, 2016. Because Hinnant 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 are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
The district court found that August 5, 2016, is the earliest date the notice of appeal 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, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).