Pulungan v. United States

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedOctober 16, 2012
Docket2012-5110
StatusUnpublished

This text of Pulungan v. United States (Pulungan v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pulungan v. United States, (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Opinion

Case: 12-5110 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 10/16/2012

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

mUlteb ~tate~ ~ourt of ~peaI~ for tbe jfeberaI (!CIrcuit

DOLI SYARIEF PULUNGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

2012-5110

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in case no. 11-CV-193, Senior Judge James F. Merow.

ON MOTION

Before LINN, DYK, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.

ORDER The United States moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Doli Pulungan has not filed a re- sponse. Case: 12-5110 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 10/16/2012

DOLI PULUNGAN v. US 2

In March 2008, Pulungan filed an appeal in the United States Court of Federal Claims. On November 15, 2011, the court dismissed Pulungan's claim for lack of jurisdiction and entered final judgment. The court re- ceived Pulungan's notice of appeal on July 6, 2012, 234 days after the date of judgment. Rule 4(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Pro- cedure govern the time for filing a notice of appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); see also Sofarelli Associates, Inc. v. U.S., 716 F.2d 1395, 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The statutory deadline for taking an appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims to this court is jurisdictional and mandatory. See Sofarelli, 716 F.2d at 1396; see also Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 213-14 (2007). We have no authority to create equitable excep- tions for untimely notices of appeal. Id. Because this appeal is untimely, we grant the motion. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion to dismiss is granted. (2) All other pending motions are denied as moot. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

OCT 1 6 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk Case: 12-5110 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 10/16/2012

cc: Doli Syarief Pulungan Sonia Marie Orfield, Esq. s26

Issued As A Mandate: __O_C_T_1_6 _2_01_2-,--_

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

Related

Bowles v. Russell
551 U.S. 205 (Supreme Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Pulungan v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pulungan-v-united-states-cafc-2012.