United States v. Langham

Tenth Circuit

United States v. Langham

77 F.3d 1280, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 3438, 1996 WL 108432

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 28, 1996

Docket95-5180

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 77 F.3d 1280 (United States v. Langham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Langham, 77 F.3d 1280, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 3438, 1996 WL 108432 (10th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

The defendant was convicted of various drug offenses following a guilty plea in July 1991. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in April 1993. On March 23, 1995, the defendant filed a motion for the transcripts of his sentencing hearing at government expense, contending that he needed the transcripts to prepare a post-conviction motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. That motion was denied on July 31 and the notice of appeal was filed on August 21. The defendant has not filed any collateral proceedings challenging this conviction.

We lack jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was untimely. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(b); United States v. Lanier, 604 F.2d 1157, 1159-60 (8th Cir.1979).

A timely notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 560, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978).

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.

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

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

The defendant was convicted of various drug offenses following a guilty plea in July 1991. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in April 1993. On March 23, 1995, the defendant filed a motion for the transcripts of his sentencing hearing at government expense, contending that he needed the transcripts to prepare a post-conviction motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. That motion was denied on July 31 and the notice of appeal was filed on August 21. The defendant has not filed any collateral proceedings challenging this conviction.

We lack jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was untimely. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(b); United States v. Lanier, 604 F.2d 1157, 1159-60 (8th Cir.1979).

A timely notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 560, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978).

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 F.3d 1280, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 3438, 1996 WL 108432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-langham-ca10-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack