Burnice Antwon Hinnant, Jr. v. State of North Carolina

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7073
BURNICE ANTWON HINNANT, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:15-hc-02283-FL)
Submitted: February 27, 2017 Decided: March 2, 2017
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Burnice Antwon Hinnant, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Burnice Antwon Hinnant, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order granting summary judgment for respondent on
Hinnant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 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
June 27, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest,
on August 5, 2016.* Because Hinnant 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 and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
* The district court found that August 5, 2016, is the
earliest date the notice of appeal 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
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --