Henry John Whited v. Ronald F. Moat, Warden

73 F.3d 359, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 4194, 1996 WL 2434
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 4, 1996
Docket95-6924
StatusPublished

This text of 73 F.3d 359 (Henry John Whited v. Ronald F. Moat, Warden) 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
Henry John Whited v. Ronald F. Moat, Warden, 73 F.3d 359, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 4194, 1996 WL 2434 (4th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

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NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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

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

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

Related

United States v. Robinson
361 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 1960)
Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill.
434 U.S. 257 (Supreme Court, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 F.3d 359, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 4194, 1996 WL 2434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-john-whited-v-ronald-f-moat-warden-ca4-1996.