Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Lineberry, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Christopher Lineberry's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The district court had dismissed the motion on May 16, 2008. Lineberry did not file his notice of appeal until November 21, 2008, well past the 60-day deadline. As the deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction since the notice of appeal was not timely filed and Lineberry did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-05-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-8486

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Christopher Lineberry's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The district court had dismissed the motion on May 16, 2008. Lineberry did not file his notice of appeal until November 21, 2008, well past the 60-day deadline. As the deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction since the notice of appeal was not timely filed and Lineberry did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Lineberry, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Christopher Lineberry's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The district court had dismissed the motion on May 16, 2008. Lineberry did not file his notice of appeal until November 21, 2008, well past the 60-day deadline. As the deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction since the notice of appeal was not timely filed and Lineberry did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period.

    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. 08-8486

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    CHRISTOPHER LINEBERRY,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
    James P. Jones, Chief
    District Judge.
    (1:02-cr-00044-jpj-mfu-1; 1:08-cv-80045-jpjmfu)

    Submitted:

    April 23, 2009

    Decided:

    May 4, 2009

    Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Christopher Lineberry, Appellant Pro Se.


    Steven Randall
    Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Christopher
    courts

    order

    Lineberry

    dismissing

    his

    2008) motion as untimely.

    seeks

    28

    to

    U.S.C.A.

    appeal

    2255

    the

    district

    (West

    Supp.

    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).
    appeal period is mandatory and jurisdictional.

    This

    Browder v.

    Dir., Dept of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United
    States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

    Accord Bowles v.

    Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007).


    The district courts order was entered on the docket
    on May 16, 2008.
    2008.

    The notice of appeal was filed on November 21,

    Because Lineberry 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

    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).

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented


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

    You might also like