Cleveland Williams v. State of North Carolina, No. 15-7588 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7588 CLEVELAND LEWIS WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; BONTIA WITHERSPOON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00598-FDW) Submitted: June 30, 2016 Before KING and Circuit Judge. KEENAN, Decided: Circuit Judges, and July 26, 2016 DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cleveland Lewis Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cleveland Lewis Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. In civil cases in which the United States is not a party, parties judgment are or 4(a)(1)(A). accorded order thirty to note days an after the appeal. entry Fed. of R. final App. P. The district court may, however, extend the time for filing a notice of appeal if a party so moves within thirty days after the expiration of the original appeal period and demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause for the extension. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). The district court may also reopen the appeal period upon a timely motion by a party. 4(a)(6). Fed. R. App. P. “[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 order dismissing petition was entered on August 21, 2015. Williams’ § 2254 Thus, Williams had until September 21, 2015, to file a notice of appeal. executed his notice of appeal on October 5, 2015. Williams Although the appeal period may be extended under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopened under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), Williams has failed to file any motion seeking relief pursuant to these provisions. 2 See Shah v. Hutto, 722 F.2d 1167, 1168-69 (4th Cir. 1983) (en banc) (“A bare notice of appeal should not be construed as a motion for extension of time, where no request for additional time is manifest.”) Because Williams failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 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.
