Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lawrence Hamilton v. Interstate Commercial Energy Corporation Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, 91-2108 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-2108 Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 12, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 958 F.2d 367 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Lawrence HAMILTON, Petitioner, v. INTERSTATE COMMERCIAL ENERGY CORPORATION; Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents. No. 91-2108. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Ci
More

958 F.2d 367

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Lawrence HAMILTON, Petitioner,
v.
INTERSTATE COMMERCIAL ENERGY CORPORATION; Director, Office
of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States
Department of Labor, Respondents.

No. 91-2108.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 2, 1992.
Decided March 12, 1992.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (87-1187-BLA)

Lawrence Hamilton, Petitioner pro se.

William Henry Howe, Washington, D.C., Barry H. Joyner, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., for respondents.

Ben. Rev. Bd.

DISMISSED.

Before SPROUSE and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Lawrence Hamilton noted this appeal outside the sixty-day appeal period established by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1), and failed to move for an extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day period provided by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5). The time periods established by Fed.R.App.P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

2

DISMISSED.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer