Ray Blanchard v. BRIAN E. FROSH, Attorney General for the State of Maryland; WARDEN GREGORY A. WERNER

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6372
RAY BLANCHARD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRIAN E. FROSH, Attorney General for the State of Maryland; WARDEN
GREGORY A. WERNER,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (1:21-cv-01494-LKG)
Submitted: August 12, 2024 Decided: October 11, 2024
Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray A. Blanchard, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ray A. Blanchard seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We previously remanded this case to the district court for the
limited purpose of determining whether Blanchard was entitled to a reopening of the appeal
period pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Blanchard v. Frosh, No. 24-6372, 2024 WL
3220298, at *1 (4th Cir. June 28, 2024). On remand, the district court entered an order
reopening the appeal period. But Blanchard filed nothing in the district court or this court
that could be construed as a notice of appeal within 14 days of the district court entering
its reopening order.* We therefore lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See Parrish v. United
States, 74 F.4th 160, 165-67 (4th Cir. 2023) (holding that appellant must file new notice of
appeal within 14 days of district court’s reopening order and that appellant cannot rely on
previously filed notice of appeal that was construed as motion to reopen).
Accordingly, we dismiss Blanchard’s 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
* Our prior opinion informed Blanchard that, if the district court were to reopen the
appeal period, he would need to file a new notice of appeal. Blanchard, 2024 WL 3220298,
at *1 n.2.

-- 2 of 2 --