Percival Fenton v. US, No. 12-7583 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7583 PERCIVAL NORMAN FENTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. No. 12-7594 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PERCIVAL NORMAN FENTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke and Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:12-cv-00106-GEC; 5:07-cr00025-GEC-1; 5:12-cv-80435-GEC-RSB) Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 6, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Percival Norman Fenton, Appellant Pro Se. Grayson A. Hoffman, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Percival Norman Fenton appeals the district court s order denying his motion to review and correct the restitution order and to reconsider the court s denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, and the court s order denying his subsequent motion for a certificate of appealability. With respect to the district court s order denying Fenton s motion to review and correct the restitution order and to reconsider, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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). of appeal in a civil case [T]he timely filing of a notice is a jurisdictional requirement. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court s order was entered on the docket on June 26, 2012. 4, 2012. The notice of appeal was filed on September Because Fenton failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal of the court s June 26 order. 3 With respect to the district court s order denying Fenton s motion for a certificate of appealability, the order is not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies movant reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the movant must ruling is demonstrate debatable, and both that that the the dispositive motion states claim of the denial of a constitutional right. procedural a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fenton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 4 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
