Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Coleman, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views3 pages
    Mark Coleman appealed a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal as untimely because Coleman filed his notice of appeal over 5 months after the district court's judgment, well beyond the 60-day deadline. The appellate court found the deadline jurisdictional and that Coleman neither obtained an extension of time to file his appeal nor had the appeal period reopened. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-03-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6028

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Mark Coleman appealed a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal as untimely because Coleman filed his notice of appeal over 5 months after the district court's judgment, well beyond the 60-day deadline. The appellate court found the deadline jurisdictional and that Coleman neither obtained an extension of time to file his appeal nor had the appeal period reopened. As a result, the court 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. Coleman, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Mark Coleman appealed a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal as untimely because Coleman filed his notice of appeal over 5 months after the district court's judgment, well beyond the 60-day deadline. The appellate court found the deadline jurisdictional and that Coleman neither obtained an extension of time to file his appeal nor had the appeal period reopened. As a result, the court 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 07-6028

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MARK COLEMAN, a/k/a Y-Kim, a/k/a Mark Johnson,
    a/k/a Wakim,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.
    Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
    Judge. (3:02-cv-03953-SB; 3:96-cr-00325-SB-4)

    Submitted:

    March 22, 2007

    Decided:

    March 30, 2007

    Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Mark Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Cameron Glenn Chandler, Assistant


    United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Mark

    Coleman

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts

    judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion, denying all


    pending motions and ending the case with prejudice. 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
    July 17, 2006.

    The notice of appeal was filed no earlier than

    December 4, 2006.*

    Because Coleman failed to file a timely notice

    of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal


    period, we dismiss the appeal.

    We dispense with oral argument

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

    For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date


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

    the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    - 3 -

    You might also like