Valdez v. Executive Office for the United States Attorneys

D.C. Circuit

Valdez v. Executive Office for the United States Attorneys

118 F. App'x 514

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 29, 2004

DocketNo. 04-5074

StatusPublished

This text of 118 F. App'x 514 (Valdez v. Executive Office for the United States Attorneys) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Valdez v. Executive Office for the United States Attorneys, 118 F. App'x 514 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed February 10, 2004 be affirmed. The district court did not err in denying appellant’s February 2004 motion for leave to file his notice of appeal of a February 2003 judgment nunc pro tunc. The motion was not filed within 30 days after the 60-day appeal period had expired, as required under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i), nor was it filed within 180 days after the judgment was entered, as required under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6)(A).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed February 10, 2004 be affirmed. The district court did not err in denying appellant’s February 2004 motion for leave to file his notice of appeal of a February 2003 judgment nunc pro tunc. The motion was not filed within 30 days after the 60-day appeal period had expired, as required under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i), nor was it filed within 180 days after the judgment was entered, as required under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6)(A).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 F. App'x 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valdez-v-executive-office-for-the-united-states-attorneys-cadc-2004.