Rico Burnett v. Harold Clarke, No. 17-6845 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6845 RICO LATRELL BURNETT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00177-MSD-LRL) Submitted: November 21, 2017 Decided: November 27, 2017 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rico Latrell Burnett appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion pursuant to Fed. R. App. 4(a)(5)(A) for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the order denying relief in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying the motion for an extension of time. See Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 76 F.3d 530, 534 (4th Cir. 1996) (“‘Excusable neglect’ is not easily demonstrated, nor was it meant to be.”). We therefore affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, Burnett v. Clarke, No. 2:16-cv-00177-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. June 2, 2017). 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. AFFIRMED 2

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.