Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    United States v. Nieto, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Amie Lynn Nieto sought to appeal the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Nieto's notice of appeal was not timely filed within 60 days of the district court's final judgment as required by Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B). The district court determined Nieto filed the notice of appeal on April 12, more than 60 days after the January 20 district court order, so the appeal was dismissed as untimely.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Nieto, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Amie Lynn Nieto sought to appeal the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Nieto's notice of appeal was not timely filed within 60 days of the district court's final judgment as required by Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B). The district court determined Nieto filed the notice of appeal on April 12, more than 60 days after the January 20 district court order, so the appeal was dismissed as untimely.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-01-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-6655

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Amie Lynn Nieto sought to appeal the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Nieto's notice of appeal was not timely filed within 60 days of the district court's final judgment as required by Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B). The district court determined Nieto filed the notice of appeal on April 12, more than 60 days after the January 20 district court order, so the appeal was dismissed as untimely.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Nieto, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. Amie Lynn Nieto sought to appeal the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Nieto's notice of appeal was not timely filed within 60 days of the district court's final judgment as required by Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B). The district court determined Nieto filed the notice of appeal on April 12, more than 60 days after the January 20 district court order, so the appeal was dismissed as untimely.

    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. 04-6655

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    AMIE LYNN NIETO,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
    Robert G. Doumar, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-02-73; CA-04-19-2)

    Submitted:

    December 20, 2004

    Decided:

    January 10, 2005

    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Amie Lynn Nieto, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Evan DePadilla, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Amie Lynn Nieto seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying her 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. Director, 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 20, 2004.

    We recently remanded this case in order for the

    district court to determine the date Nieto delivered her notice of


    appeal to prison officials for mailing to the court.

    See Fed. R.

    App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

    The district

    court determined that Nieto filed her notice of appeal on April 12,
    and Nieto has not challenged that finding.

    Because the district

    courts factual finding is not clearly erroneous and because Nieto


    failed to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
    dismiss the appeal as untimely.

    We dispense with oral argument

    - 2 -

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in


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

    DISMISSED

    - 3 -

    You might also like