Carlos Woods v. Attorney General of Maryland, No. 13-6566 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6566 CARLOS WOODS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:12-cv-01260-WDQ) Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 5, 2013 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlos Woods, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Carlos denying his Woods motion appeals for an the district extension court s of to time order appeal or, alternatively, to reopen the period to appeal the dismissal as time-barred of his 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (2006) petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court s 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 court s judgment of dismissal was entered on the docket on December 3, 2012. of appeal. On correspondence judgment be March from 15, 2013, Woods recalled so Woods did not file a notice the district requesting that he that could court the appeal received December it. 3 Woods claimed in this and in ensuing correspondence that he learned of the judgment on March 7, 2013. Woods had been transferred between facilities in the Bureau of Prisons on November 5, 2012 and claims that, at some unspecified point after he arrived at the United States Penitentiary Lewisburg ( USP Lewisburg ), he wrote the court to inform [it] 2 of [his] address change. The docket in this case, however, shows no correspondence from Woods between October 13, 2012 and January 29, 2013. of the district court s judgment sent The copy to Woods on March 15 December 3, 2012 had been returned as undeliverable. The district court construed Woods correspondence as a motion for an extension of time to appeal or, alternatively, to reopen the period to appeal. The court denied the motion, determining that Woods was not entitled to relief under Rule 4(a)(5) and that, even if Woods met the requirements for reopening the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(6), 1 it would not exercise its discretion to reopen the appeal period. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Woods informal brief does not challenge the district court s determination 4(a)(5), Wahi v. he that has he was forfeited Charleston Area not entitled appellate Med. Ctr., to relief review Inc., of 562 under that F.3d Rule ruling. 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009). 1 Under Rule 4(a)(6), a district court may reopen the appeal period for fourteen days if it finds that: (1) a party entitled to notice of entry of judgment did not receive notice within twenty-one days after entry; (2) the party moved to reopen the appeal period within 180 days of judgment or within fourteen days of receiving notice of judgment, whichever is earlier; and (3) no party would be prejudiced. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). 3 With respect to the district court s ruling denying Woods relief under Rule 4(a)(6), the rule is permissive and allows a district court to deny a motion to reopen even if the movant meets the rule s three requirements. See In re Jones, 970 F.2d 36, 39 (5th Cir. 1992) (noting that Rule 4(a)(6) is discretionary). Because Woods failure to keep the district court apprised of his address change led to his not receiving the dismissal order in a timely manner, 2 the district court did not abuse 4(a)(6). its discretion in denying him relief under Rule See Benavides v. Bureau of Prisons, 79 F.3d 1211, 1214 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ( If in a particular case the movant is at fault-if the movant negligently failed to notify the clerk of his change of address, for example-then the district court may, in its discretion, deny relief under Rule 4(a)(6). ); Jones, 970 F.2d at 39 (stating standard of review). Accordingly, We dispense with oral we affirm argument 2 the district because the court s facts and order. legal Although Woods was transferred to USP Lewisburg on November 5, 2012, he did not notify the district court clerk of his change of address until January 30, 2013, when the court received correspondence from Woods bearing the USP Lewisburg address. Woods does not suggest any reason for the nearly three-month delay. 4 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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.
