Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Whited v. Moat, 20-1551 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 20-1551 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jan. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6924 HENRY JOHN WHITED, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD F. MOAT, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-95-1039-WMN) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry John Whi
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 95-6924



HENRY JOHN WHITED,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

RONALD F. MOAT, Warden,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CA-95-1039-WMN)


Submitted:   December 14, 1995            Decided:   January 4, 1996


Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Henry John Whited, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
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." 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 June 6, 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 dis-

miss 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




                                2

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