John Anthony Turner v. William Smith, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland

38 F.3d 1213, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 36643, 1994 WL 559263
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 13, 1994
Docket94-6859
StatusPublished

This text of 38 F.3d 1213 (John Anthony Turner v. William Smith, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland) 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
John Anthony Turner v. William Smith, Warden Attorney General of the State of Maryland, 38 F.3d 1213, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 36643, 1994 WL 559263 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

38 F.3d 1213
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

John Anthony TURNER, Petitioner Appellant,
v.
William SMITH, Warden; Attorney General of the State of
Maryland, Respondents Appellees.

No. 94-6859.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted August 25, 1994.
Decided October 13, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-94-1217-S)

John Anthony Turner, Appellant Pro Se.

D.Md.

DISMISSED.

Before RUSSELL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

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)). 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)
38 F.3d 1213, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 36643, 1994 WL 559263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-anthony-turner-v-william-smith-warden-attorne-ca4-1994.