Michael Williams v. Loretta Kelly, No. 14-6203 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6203 MICHAEL ANTWUAN WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LORETTA K. KELLY, Warden, Sussex I State Prison, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:10-cv-00808-JRS) Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: April 29, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Antwuan Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Alice Theresa Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Antwuan Williams seeks to appeal the district court s order petition. denying We dismiss relief the on his appeal 28 for U.S.C. lack ยง 2254 of (2012) jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after 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). Lack of notice of the entry does not affect the time for appeal or relieve or authorize the court to relieve a party for failing to appeal within the time allowed, except as allowed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (4)(a). Rule 4(a)(6) of Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d)(2). the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure permits the reopening of the appeal period if a party has not received twenty-one days notice after of the entry, but judgment the motion or order within requesting such relief must be filed within 180 days after entry of the judgment or order or fourteen days after the party received notice of the judgment 4(a)(6). or order, whichever is earlier. Fed. R. App. P. The time requirements of Rule 4(a) are mandatory and jurisdictional. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 208-14 (2007); Browder v. Dir., Dep t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264-65 (1978). 2 The district court s order was entered on the docket on August 30, 2011. motion to mailing reopen on Williams delivered a notice of appeal and the January appeal 27, period 2014. See to prison Fed. R. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). officials App. P. for 4(c); In the notice and motion, Williams claimed he was not properly notified of the district court s denial decision in time to file a timely notice of appeal. However, the 180-day reopening period expired well before Williams filed his notice of appeal and motion to reopen. Thus, Williams period. is not eligible for reopening of the appeal Nunley v. City of Los Angeles, 52 F.3d 792, 794-95 (9th Cir. 1995); Hensley v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 651 F.2d 226, 228 (4th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, because Williams failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period and is not eligible for reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed We dispense with contentions are in oral forma pauperis argument adequately and because presented in dismiss the the facts the materials appeal. and legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
