Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Henry John Whited v. Ronald F. Moat, Warden, 95-6924 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6924 Visitors: 23
Filed: Jan. 04, 1996
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Summary: 73 F.3d 359 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Henry John WHITED, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald F. MOAT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 95-6924. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: Dec. 14, 1995. Decided: Jan. 4, 1996. Henry John Whited, Appellan
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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Henry John WHITED, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Ronald F. MOAT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 95-6924.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 14, 1995.
Decided: Jan. 4, 1996.

Henry John Whited, Appellant Pro Se.

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

PER CURIAM:

1

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 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