Case Name: Rico Latrell BURNETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-27
Citations: 704 F. App'x 254
Docket Number: No. 17-6845
Parties: Rico Latrell BURNETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 704
Pages: 254–255

Head Matter:
Rico Latrell BURNETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6845
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 21, 2017
Decided: November 27, 2017
David Bernai’d Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rico Latrell Burnett appeals the district court's orders denying his motion pursuant to Fed. R. App. 4(a)(5)(A) for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the order denying relief in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying the motion for an extension of time. See Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 76 F.3d 530, 534 (4th Cir. 1996) ("'Excusable neglect' is not easily demonstrated, nor was it meant to be."). We therefore affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, Burnett v. Clarke, No. 2:16-cv-00177-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. June 2, 2017). 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.
AFFIRMED