Filed: Mar. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1194 In Re: CARL E. SNYDER, Debtor. _ ROY D. HANSEN MORTGAGE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARL E. SNYDER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-4150-JFM, BK-91-44784) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1194 In Re: CARL E. SNYDER, Debtor. _ ROY D. HANSEN MORTGAGE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARL E. SNYDER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-4150-JFM, BK-91-44784) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-1194
In Re: CARL E. SNYDER,
Debtor.
_________________________
ROY D. HANSEN MORTGAGE COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CARL E. SNYDER,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-93-4150-JFM, BK-91-44784)
Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jon Alexander Hoppe, HAFEY & HOPPE, L.L.C., Rockville, Maryland,
for Appellant. Carl E. Snyder, Appellee Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal
period established by FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an
extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day
period provided by FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to
relief under FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established
by FED. R. APP. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional."* The
district court entered its order on December 28, 1994; Appellant's
notice of appeal was filed on January 30, 1995. 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 the Appellee's motion to submit the case on briefs
as moot 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
*
Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections,
434 U.S. 257, 264
(1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson,
361 U.S. 220, 229
(1960)).
3