Virgil Lee Payne v. Marvin Runyon, Postmaster General

54 F.3d 773, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17424, 1995 WL 308897
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 19, 1995
Docket95-1117
StatusPublished

This text of 54 F.3d 773 (Virgil Lee Payne v. Marvin Runyon, Postmaster General) 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
Virgil Lee Payne v. Marvin Runyon, Postmaster General, 54 F.3d 773, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17424, 1995 WL 308897 (4th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

54 F.3d 773
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Virgil Lee PAYNE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Marvin RUNYON, Postmaster General, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 95-1117.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 1995.
Decided: May 19, 1995.

Virgil Lee Payne, Appellant Pro Se. Carol A. Casto, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, SC, for Appellee.

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)
54 F.3d 773, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17424, 1995 WL 308897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/virgil-lee-payne-v-marvin-runyon-postmaster-genera-ca4-1995.