Williams v. Galley
Williams v. Galley
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6639
CRAIG WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus
JOHN P. GALLEY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 00-382-CCB)
Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 26, 2000
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Craig Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Craig Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order dis- missing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Williams’ notice of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), 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). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on Feb- ruary 15, 2000. Williams’ notice of appeal was filed on April 20, 2000.* Because Williams failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
* 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 given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.