Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
20-6291•Paul W. Hughes v. JOHN WALRATH, Warden State Farm Correctional Complex (State Farm Work Center)
20-6291Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit18.08.2021
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6291
PAUL W. HUGHES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOHN WALRATH, Warden State Farm Correctional Complex (State Farm Work
Center),
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00335-TSE-TCB)
Submitted: July 28, 2021 Decided: August 18, 2021
Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul W. Hughes, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Paul W. Hughes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice
of appeal was not timely filed.
In civil cases, parties have 30 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 entered its order on January 23, 2020. The district court found on
limited remand that Hughes filed his notice of appeal on February 25, 2020. We review
this factual finding for clear error, see Ray v. Clements, 700 F.3d 993, 1012-13
(7th Cir. 2012), and we discern no such error. Because Hughes failed to file a timely notice
of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.