Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Saunders H. Cox v. Earnest R. Sutton, Superintendent, Washington County Prison Unit, Respondent, 88-6668 (1988)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 88-6668 Visitors: 30
Filed: Aug. 22, 1988
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 856 F.2d 186 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Saunders H. COX, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Earnest R. SUTTON, Superintendent, Washington County Prison Unit, Respondent- Appellee. No. 88-6668. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted June
More

856 F.2d 186
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Saunders H. COX, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Earnest R. SUTTON, Superintendent, Washington County Prison
Unit, Respondent- Appellee.

No. 88-6668.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 30, 1988.
Decided Aug. 22, 1988.

Saunders H. Cox, appellant pro se.

Richard Norwood League, Office of Attorney General of North Carolina, for appellee.

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Saunders H. Cox noted this appeal outside the 30-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 30-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. See Shah v. Hutto, 722 F.2d 1167 (4th Cir.1983) (en banc), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 975 (1984). We therefore deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and oral argument would not significantly 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