Mildred Miller v. Bureau of Prisons Vic Loy, Warden Miss Gwin, Head of Education

56 F.3d 61, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19111, 1995 WL 318749
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 26, 1995
Docket95-6237
StatusPublished

This text of 56 F.3d 61 (Mildred Miller v. Bureau of Prisons Vic Loy, Warden Miss Gwin, Head of Education) 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
Mildred Miller v. Bureau of Prisons Vic Loy, Warden Miss Gwin, Head of Education, 56 F.3d 61, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19111, 1995 WL 318749 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

56 F.3d 61
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Mildred MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BUREAU OF PRISONS; Vic Loy, Warden; Miss Gwin, Head of
Education, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-6237.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 20, 1995.
Decided May 26, 1995.

Mildred Miller, appellant pro se.

Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, WV, for appellees.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant noted this appeal outside the sixty-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)
56 F.3d 61, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19111, 1995 WL 318749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mildred-miller-v-bureau-of-prisons-vic-loy-warden--ca4-1995.