Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    United States v. Puckett, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Robert Puckett sought to appeal a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 2) The district court entered its order denying the motion on April 22, 2003. Puckett's notice of appeal was filed on October 21, 2003, outside the 60 day window to file an appeal. 3) Because Puckett failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    United States v. Puckett, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views3 pages
    1) Robert Puckett sought to appeal a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 2) The district court entered its order denying the motion on April 22, 2003. Puckett's notice of appeal was filed on October 21, 2003, outside the 60 day window to file an appeal. 3) Because Puckett failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-09-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6335

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Robert Puckett sought to appeal a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 2) The district court entered its order denying the motion on April 22, 2003. Puckett's notice of appeal was filed on October 21, 2003, outside the 60 day window to file an appeal. 3) Because Puckett failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views3 pages

    United States v. Puckett, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Robert Puckett sought to appeal a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 2) The district court entered its order denying the motion on April 22, 2003. Puckett's notice of appeal was filed on October 21, 2003, outside the 60 day window to file an appeal. 3) Because Puckett failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-6335

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ROBERT WILLIAM PUCKETT,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-98-12; CA-99-161-7-F)

    Submitted:

    September 15, 2004

    Decided:

    September 27, 2004

    Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Robert William Puckett, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Witcover Dean,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert William Puckett seeks to appeal the district
    courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion.
    We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice
    of appeal was not timely filed.
    When the United States or its officer or agency is a
    party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days
    after the entry of the district courts final judgment or order,
    Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the
    appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal
    period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
    mandatory and jurisdictional.

    This appeal period is

    Browder v. Dir., Dept of Corr.,

    434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361
    U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).
    The district courts order was entered on the docket on
    April 22, 2003.
    2003.*

    The notice of appeal was filed on October 21,

    Because Puckett failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

    to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny


    Pucketts motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

    For the purpose of this appeal, we construe Pucketts first


    request for a certificate of appealability as a notice of appeal
    and find that the date appearing on that document is the earliest
    date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for
    mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack,
    487 U.S. 266 (1988).
    - 2 -

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    - 3 -

    You might also like