McKinney Joe Henry v. W. J. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections

688 F.2d 407, 34 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1644, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24978
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 7, 1982
Docket81-1451
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 688 F.2d 407 (McKinney Joe Henry v. W. J. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McKinney Joe Henry v. W. J. Estelle, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, 688 F.2d 407, 34 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1644, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24978 (5th Cir. 1982).

Opinion

GARWOOD, Circuit Judge:

Petitioner Henry appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. The district court entered judgment on July 9,1981. Petitioner’s notice of appeal and request for certificate of probable cause were filed on August 14, 1981, which was outside the 30-day time limitation of Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1). Petitioner filed no motion to excuse the delay under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5). Therefore, this Court is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Reynolds v. Hunt Oil Co., 643 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir. 1981). The lower court’s August 26, 1981 grant of the certificate of probable cause is of no import. Neither the request for certificate of probable cause nor the order granting it in any way alludes to the fact that the notice of appeal was untimely or to any reason it was filed subsequent to its due date. The request for certificate of probable cause does not request any extension of time for filing notice of appeal, and indeed does not mention anything at all about notice of appeal. The printed form order granting the certificate of probable cause does not purport to extend the time for notice of appeal or to find that there was excusable neglect or good cause for the failure to sooner file the notice of appeal. Ryals v. Estelle, 661 F.2d 904 (5th Cir. 1981). See also Briggs v. Lucas, 678 F.2d 612 (5th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we dismiss the attempted appeal.

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Lewis
Fifth Circuit, 2021
Jackson v. Baidoo
Fifth Circuit, 2021
United States v. David Adams
Fifth Circuit, 2018
Richard Nichols v. Ron Hickman
699 F. App'x 330 (Fifth Circuit, 2017)
Jerry Castillo, Jr. v. David Munoz
682 F. App'x 297 (Fifth Circuit, 2017)
Darryl Sterling v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden
668 F. App'x 135 (Fifth Circuit, 2016)
Rayford v. Pryor, Jr. v. U.S. Postal Service
769 F.2d 281 (Fifth Circuit, 1985)
H.L. Smith, Inc. v. Allied Chemical Corp.
564 F. Supp. 377 (M.D. Louisiana, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
688 F.2d 407, 34 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1644, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckinney-joe-henry-v-w-j-estelle-director-texas-department-of-ca5-1982.