Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

32 F. App'x 118

Knight v. York

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided April 16, 2002

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2002-04-16

Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2002

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · Shah v. Td Hutto Oj Jm Icc Ra Ap Ss · Hensley v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion · Decided 2002-04-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Kenneth M. Knight, Sr., seeks to appeal the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). The district court’s final order was entered on July 20, 2001. Knight filed a notice of appeal dated October 5, 2001, well after his time for noting an appeal had expired under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). In this document Knight claimed he did not receive notice of entry of final judgment until September 24, 2001. Even if the notice of appeal were considered as a motion for extension of time under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6), cf. Shah v. Hutto, 722 F.2d 1167, 1168-69 (4th Cir.1983), it was filed more than seven days after the date Knight claims to have received notice of the district court’s order and is, therefore, untimely. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6)(A); Hensley v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 651 F.2d 226, 228 (4th Cir.1981). Because we are without jurisdiction, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

¶2 DISMISSED.

/32/fappx/118 · .json · Public domain