UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7373
CHRISTOPHER HOWARD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 12-7715
CHRISTOPHER HOWARD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District
Judge. (9:12-cv-00711-DCN)
Submitted: December 19, 2012 Decided: January 7, 2013
Before GREGORY, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Howard, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In Appeal No. 12-7373, Christopher Howard seeks to
appeal the district court’s May 3, 2012, order adopting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2006) petition as successive, as well as the district
court’s June 14 order denying his post-judgment motions. We
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice
of appeal was not timely filed.
“[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). 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). An
appeal period may be tolled, however, by the timely filing of a
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration or a Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief. Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (vi).
Because Howard timely filed both a Rule 59(e) motion
for reconsideration and a Rule 60(b) motion for relief, the
appeal period began to run on June 14, 2012, the date those
motions were denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (vi), (a)(4)(B)(ii). The notice of appeal was
3
filed on August 13, 2012. * Because Howard failed to file a
timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal of the district
court’s May 3, 2012, order dismissing Howard’s § 2254 petition
as successive and the district court’s June 14, 2012, order
denying his post-judgment motions.
In Appeal No. 12-7715, Howard seeks to appeal the
district court’s August 30, 2012, order adopting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition as successive. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
(2006). When the district court denies relief on procedural
grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional
right. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).
*
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
(1988).
4
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Howard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of
the district court’s August 30 order dismissing Howard’s § 2254
petition as successive.
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
5