Ulysses M. Harcum v. Commonwealth of Virginia

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7108
ULYSSES M. HARCUM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:15-cv-00267-GBL-JFA)
Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 20, 2015
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ulysses M. Harcum, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Ulysses M. Harcum seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies. We
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice
of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 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’s order was entered on the docket on
March 31, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on June 23,
2015.* Although a statement in the notice appeal, liberally
construed, suggests Harcum may have been seeking an extension of
time to appeal, the district court lacked the authority to grant
such an extension. See Hensley v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.,
651 F.2d 226, 228 (4th Cir. 1981) (noting expiration of time
* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to
the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266,
276 (1988).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
limits in Rule 4 deprives court of jurisdiction); see also Fed.
R. App. P. 26(b)(1) (noting that court may not extend appeal
period, except as provided by Rule 4). Because Harcum failed to
file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or
reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, deny Harcum’s motion to appoint counsel, 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 of 3 --