Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    Rollins v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Steven Rollins appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 2) The district court entered its order dismissing the petition on September 10, 2003. 3) Rollins did not file his notice of appeal until October 15, 2003, more than 30 days after the district court's order. 4) Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Rollins v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    27 views3 pages
    1) Steven Rollins appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 2) The district court entered its order dismissing the petition on September 10, 2003. 3) Rollins did not file his notice of appeal until October 15, 2003, more than 30 days after the district court's order. 4) Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-04-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7688

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Steven Rollins appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 2) The district court entered its order dismissing the petition on September 10, 2003. 3) Rollins did not file his notice of appeal until October 15, 2003, more than 30 days after the district court's order. 4) Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    27 views3 pages

    Rollins v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Steven Rollins appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 2) The district court entered its order dismissing the petition on September 10, 2003. 3) Rollins did not file his notice of appeal until October 15, 2003, more than 30 days after the district court's order. 4) Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-7688

    STEVEN D. ROLLINS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD J. ANGELONE,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-02-498-7)

    Submitted:

    March 31, 2004

    Decided:

    April 28, 2004

    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Steven D. Rollins, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,


    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Steven D. Rollins seeks to appeal the district courts
    order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000).
    We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice
    of appeal was not timely filed.
    Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the
    district courts 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).

    This appeal period is mandatory

    and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Dept of Corr., 434 U.S.


    257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,
    229 (1960)).
    The district courts order was entered on the docket on
    September 10, 2003.
    2003.*

    The notice of appeal was filed on October 15,

    Because Rollins failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

    to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we


    dismiss the appeal.

    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. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
    (1988).
    - 2 -

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


    legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
    the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 3 -

    You might also like