Court Opinion

ID: 4910904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-14 19:05:50.572351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:12.590107
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                        No. 21-6621

CHAD EVERETT GOINS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Thomas T. Cullen, District Judge. (7:19-cv-00548-TTC-RSB)

Submitted: September 9, 2021                                Decided: September 14, 2021

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chad Everett Goins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Chad Everett Goins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice

of appeal was not timely filed.

       In civil cases, parties have 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 entered its order on March 10, 2021. Goins filed the notice of

appeal, at the earliest, on April 16, 2021. * Because Goins failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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 Goins could have delivered the notice to prison officials for
mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

                                             2