Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

85 F.3d 615

Docket No. 95-8543.

Jerome Bailey v. Ronald J. Angelone, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted April 15, 1996. Decided May 2, 1996.

This page is marked noindex.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1996-05-02

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

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1996-05-02

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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. Robert G. Doumar, District Judge. (CA-94-1048-2)

Jerome Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

E.D.Va.

DISMISSED.

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, 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)). 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 deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore 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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

/85/f3d/615 · .json · Public domain