Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Tony Lemont Summers, 95-7289 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-7289 Visitors: 10
Filed: Dec. 21, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 73 F.3d 359 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Lemont SUMMERS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-7289. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: November 30, 1995. Decided: December 21, 1995. Tony Lemont Summ
More

73 F.3d 359
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Tony Lemont SUMMERS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 95-7289.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 30, 1995.
Decided: December 21, 1995.

Tony Lemont Summers, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, NC, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant noted this appeal outside the sixty-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." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court entered its order on April 14, 1995; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on July 10, 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 dismiss the appeal. We deny Appellant's motion to vacate the district court's order. 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