United States v. Paul Kirk, A/K/A Kip, A/K/A Mr. Hollywood

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Paul Kirk, A/K/A Kip, A/K/A Mr. Hollywood

986 F.2d 1416, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 9330, 1993 WL 46844

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 23, 1993·No. 92-7136·Unpublished

Opinion

986 F.2d 1416

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Paul KIRK, a/k/a Kip, a/k/a Mr. Hollywood, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 92-7136.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 1, 1993
Decided: February 23, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-88-11-R, CA-91-625-R)

Paul Kirk, Appellant Pro Se.

Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Paul Kirk noted this appeal outside the sixty-day appeal period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), and failed to move for an extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). Further, he did not file the notice of appeal within seven days of his belated receipt of the district court's order, as allowed 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 deny the motion to file a belated appeal and 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

986 F.2d 1416

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished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.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Paul KIRK, a/k/a Kip, a/k/a Mr. Hollywood, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 92-7136.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 1, 1993
Decided: February 23, 1993

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-88-11-R, CA-91-625-R)

Paul Kirk, Appellant Pro Se.

Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Paul Kirk noted this appeal outside the sixty-day appeal period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), and failed to move for an extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). Further, he did not file the notice of appeal within seven days of his belated receipt of the district court's order, as allowed 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 deny the motion to file a belated appeal and 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

United States v. Paul Kirk, A/K/A Kip, A/K/A Mr. Hollywood, 986 F.2d 1416, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 9330, 1993 WL 46844 (4th Cir. 1993).

Pincite

986 F.2d 1416 (United States v. Paul Kirk, A/K/A Kip, A/K/A Mr. Hollywood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related