Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

43 F.3d 1466

Docket No. 94-1839.

Gray v. Ferguson Ceo

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Oct. 18, 1994 Decided Nov. 10, 1994.

This page is marked noindex.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1994-11-10

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 1994 · most notably Johnson v. A O'Connor E (1994), Gibbs v. Angelone (1994)

27 federal appellate ·

Relies on Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · United States v. Robinson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1994-11-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Richard B. Kellam, Senior District Judge. (CA-93-1160-2)

Isaac Thomas Gray, appellant pro se.

Mark Douglas Stiles, Willcox & Savage, Norfolk, Va.; Bruce L. Silverstein, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington, Del., for appellees.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

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)). 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

/43/f3d/1466 · .json · Public domain