Calito Corado v. Reno

Fourth Circuit

Calito Corado v. Reno

10 F. App'x 221

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 2001

Docket00-7817

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 F. App'x 221 (Calito Corado v. Reno) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Calito Corado v. Reno, 10 F. App'x 221 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Marco A. Calito Corado filed an untimely appeal of the district court’s order dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed.R.App.P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, *222 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (I960)). Parties to civil actions in which the United States is a party have sixty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1)(B). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R.App.P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on December 22, 1999; Calito Corado’s notice of appeal was filed on October 13, 2000, which is beyond the sixty-day appeal period. Calito Corado’s failure to note a timely appeal or timely request an extension of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of his appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal of the district court’s December 22, 1999, order.

Calito Corado also appeals the district court’s order of November 3, 2000, denying his request for an extension to file an untimely notice of appeal. We affirm that order because the request itself was untimely. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i) (requiring request for extension of time to appeal to be filed within thirty days after expiration of appeal period).

We deny Calito Corado’s second motion for a stay of removal and 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 IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Marco A. Calito Corado filed an untimely appeal of the district court’s order dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed.R.App.P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, *222 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (I960)). Parties to civil actions in which the United States is a party have sixty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1)(B). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R.App.P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on December 22, 1999; Calito Corado’s notice of appeal was filed on October 13, 2000, which is beyond the sixty-day appeal period. Calito Corado’s failure to note a timely appeal or timely request an extension of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of his appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal of the district court’s December 22, 1999, order.

Calito Corado also appeals the district court’s order of November 3, 2000, denying his request for an extension to file an untimely notice of appeal. We affirm that order because the request itself was untimely. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i) (requiring request for extension of time to appeal to be filed within thirty days after expiration of appeal period).

We deny Calito Corado’s second motion for a stay of removal and 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 IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 F. App'x 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calito-corado-v-reno-ca4-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack