Court Opinion

ID: 4314542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-09-21 19:01:10.244314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:44:47.340884
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-6277

KEVIN CELLENT,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

FRANK L. PERRY; JOSH STEIN, Attorney General,

                    Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00814-FDW)

Submitted: September 18, 2018                               Decided: September 21, 2018

Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Noell Peter Tin, TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Kevin Cellent seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2012) petition as untimely.       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 January 24, 2018. The

notice of appeal was filed on March 19, 2018. Because Cellent 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

                                              2