Carl Louis Emerson v. State of Maryland

857 F.2d 1468, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 13853, 1988 WL 92916

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 7, 1988
• Docket: 88-6645
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

857 F.2d 1468
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Carl Louis EMERSON, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 88-6645.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 13, 1988.
Decided: Sept. 7, 1988.

Carl Louis Emerson, appellant pro se.

Jillyn Kaberle Schulze, John Joseph Curran Jr., Attorney General (Office of the Attorney General of Maryland), for appellee.

Before JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS, CHAPMAN and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Carl Louis Emerson 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 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.

DISMISSED.