Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pipkin v. Green, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Frank Pipkin's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had denied the petition on January 14, 2008, but Pipkin did not file his notice of appeal until February 22, 2008, more than 30 days later. As the notice of appeal was not timely filed within the mandatory 30-day period, and no extension was obtained, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-07-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-6358

    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 Frank Pipkin's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had denied the petition on January 14, 2008, but Pipkin did not file his notice of appeal until February 22, 2008, more than 30 days later. As the notice of appeal was not timely filed within the mandatory 30-day period, and no extension was obtained, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Pipkin v. Green, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Frank Pipkin's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court had denied the petition on January 14, 2008, but Pipkin did not file his notice of appeal until February 22, 2008, more than 30 days later. As the notice of appeal was not timely filed within the mandatory 30-day period, and no extension was obtained, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 08-6358

    FRANK GARRETT PIPKIN,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    KATHLEEN GREEN, Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, Jr.; THE ATTORNEY
    GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:07-cv01579-RWT)

    Submitted:

    July 22, 2008

    Decided:

    July 25, 2008

    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Frank Garrett Pipkin, Appellant Pro Se.


    Mary Jennifer Landis,
    Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Frank Garrett Pipkin seeks to appeal the district courts
    order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition.

    We dismiss

    the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal


    was not timely filed.
    Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the
    district courts final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.
    App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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).
    and jurisdictional.

    This appeal period is mandatory

    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
    January 14, 2008.
    2008.1

    The notice of appeal was filed on February 22,

    Because Pipkin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

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


    dismiss the appeal.2
    facts

    and

    legal

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    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

    Insofar as Pipkin claims he sent letters indicating his


    desire to appeal to the district court and this court prior to the
    February 22, 2008, notice of appeal, there is nothing on either
    courts docket sheet showing he sent such letters.
    - 2 -

    materials

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    - 3 -

    You might also like