Richard A. Wallace, Jr. v. STAN YOUNG, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6784
RICHARD A. WALLACE, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STAN YOUNG, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:13-cv-00363-JLK-RSB)
Submitted: September 5, 2014 Decided: September 18, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard A. Wallace, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Richard A. Wallace, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as untimely his 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 thirty 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 January 7, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on May 14,
2014.* Because Wallace failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dismiss the appeal and deny as moot Wallace’s motion for a
certificate of appealability. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
* A pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal is considered filed
at the moment it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing
to the court. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --