Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • DeBlois v. Hershberger, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Richard DeBlois's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had denied the petition on October 21, 2010. However, DeBlois did not file his notice of appeal until January 13, 2011, well past the 30-day deadline. As the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and DeBlois did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-06-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-6267

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Richard DeBlois's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had denied the petition on October 21, 2010. However, DeBlois did not file his notice of appeal until January 13, 2011, well past the 30-day deadline. As the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and DeBlois did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    DeBlois v. Hershberger, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Richard DeBlois's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had denied the petition on October 21, 2010. However, DeBlois did not file his notice of appeal until January 13, 2011, well past the 30-day deadline. As the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and DeBlois did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    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. 11-6267

    RICHARD DEBLOIS,
    Petitioner Appellant,
    v.
    GREGG L. HERSHBERGER, Warden, RCI; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
    STATE OF MARYLAND, Douglas F. Gansler,
    Respondents Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
    (1:10-cv-01156-CCB)

    Submitted:

    May 25, 2011

    Decided:

    June 3, 2011

    Before KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Richard DeBlois, Appellant Pro Se.


    Edward John Kelley, OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Richard DeBlois seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006) petition.

    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).

    [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 courts order was entered on the docket


    on October 21, 2010.
    January 13, 2011. *

    The notice of appeal is deemed filed on


    Because DeBlois 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

    DeBlois states in this court that he gave his notice of


    appeal to prison officials for mailing on February 24, 2011.
    That date is clearly erroneous, as this court received the
    appeal on January 18, 2011. For the purpose of this appeal, we
    give DeBlois the benefit of the earlier dated stamped on the
    notice by prison officials: January 13, 2011. Fed. R. App. P.
    4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

    presented in the materials before the court and argument would


    not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like