Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bannister v. Catoe, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Benjamin Bannister's appeal of a district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The appeals court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the case because Bannister's notice of appeal was not filed within the mandatory 30-day period after the district court entered its order, nor did Bannister request an extension of time to file the appeal. As a result, the appeals court dismisses the case without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-09-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-6533

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Benjamin Bannister's appeal of a district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The appeals court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the case because Bannister's notice of appeal was not filed within the mandatory 30-day period after the district court entered its order, nor did Bannister request an extension of time to file the appeal. As a result, the appeals court dismisses the case without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    7 views3 pages

    Bannister v. Catoe, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Benjamin Bannister's appeal of a district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The appeals court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the case because Bannister's notice of appeal was not filed within the mandatory 30-day period after the district court entered its order, nor did Bannister request an extension of time to file the appeal. As a result, the appeals court dismisses the case without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 01-6533

    BENJAMIN BANNISTER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    WILLIAM D. CATOE, Director of South Carolina
    Department of Corrections; STATE OF SOUTH
    CAROLINA; CHARLES CONDON,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenwood. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
    (CA-99-1504-9-24RB)

    Submitted:

    August 17, 2001

    Decided:

    September 10, 2001

    Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Benjamin Bannister, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
    Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Benjamin Bannister seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A.
    2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000).

    We dismiss the appeal for lack of

    jurisdiction because Bannisters notice of appeal was not timely


    filed.
    Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district
    courts 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).
    jurisdictional.

    This appeal period is mandatory and

    Browder v. Director, Dept of Corrections, 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 29, 2000.

    According Bannister the benefit of Fed. R.

    App. P. 4(c), his notice of appeal was filed on March 28, 2001.
    Although Bannister claimed he did not receive the district courts
    order until March 9, 2001, he did not move for an extension of time
    to appeal within seven days of his receipt of the district courts
    order.

    Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(A).

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

    DISMISSED

    You might also like