Bailey v. Angelone ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 95-8543
    JEROME BAILEY,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
    Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, District Judge.
    (CA-94-1048-2)
    Submitted:   April 15, 1996                   Decided:   May 2, 1996
    Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jerome Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attor-
    ney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-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)). The district
    court entered its order on April 14, 1995; Appellant's notice of
    appeal was filed on December 11, 1995. Appellant's failure to note
    a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period de-
    prives this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We there-
    fore deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the
    appeal. We deny Appellant's motion for bail pending appeal in light
    of this disposition and dispense with oral argument because the
    facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
    rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 95-8543

Filed Date: 5/2/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021