Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Dexter R. Perry v. Dave Williams, Warden Attorney General of Virginia, 92-6382 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6382 Visitors: 44
Filed: Aug. 10, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 972 F.2d 341 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Dexter R. PERRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dave WILLIAMS, Warden; Attorney General of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees. No. 92-6382. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: July 20, 1992 Decided: August 10, 1992 A
More

972 F.2d 341

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Dexter R. PERRY, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Dave WILLIAMS, Warden; Attorney General of Virginia,
Respondents-Appellees.

No. 92-6382.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 1992
Decided: August 10, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-90-348-AM)

Dexter R. Perry, Appellant Pro Se.

Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

E.D.Va.

Dismissed.

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Dexter R. Perry noted this appeal outside the thirty-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 deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and 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.

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