Court Opinion

ID: 4275714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-05-16 19:00:23.756341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:22.323534
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 18-6109

DARRYL K. LESTER, JR.,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

BARRY KANODE, Warden,

                     Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (7:17-cv-00230-NKM-RSB)

Submitted: March 20, 2018                                         Decided: May 16, 2018

Before MOTZ, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darryl Keith Lester, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Darryl Keith Lester, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing 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 December 4, 2017. The

notice of appeal was filed on January 12, 2018. * Because Lester failed to file a timely

notice of appeal or 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

       *
        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).

                                              2