Rico Burnett v. Harold Clarke
This text of 704 F. App'x 254 (Rico Burnett v. Harold Clarke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Rico Latrell Burnett appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion pursuant to Fed. R. App. 4(a)(5)(A) for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the order denying relief in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying the motion for an extension of time. See Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 76 F.3d 530, 534 (4th Cir. 1996) (“‘Excusable neglect’ is not easily demonstrated, nor was it meant to be.”). We therefore affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, Burnett v. Clarke, No. 2:16-cv-00177-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. June 2, 2017). 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.
AFFIRMED
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
704 F. App'x 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rico-burnett-v-harold-clarke-ca4-2017.