Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Werner Joseph Matthews v. Tom C. Martin, Warden/ceo, 92 F.3d 1180, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Werner Joseph Matthews appealed a district court's denial of habeas corpus relief. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Matthews filed the notice of appeal outside the 30-day period required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and did not obtain an extension. The time periods for filing a notice of appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional. Because Matthews failed to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension, the Fourth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to consider the case and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-08-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 92 F.3d 1180 Docket: 96-6817

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Werner Joseph Matthews appealed a district court's denial of habeas corpus relief. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Matthews filed the notice of appeal outside the 30-day period required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and did not obtain an extension. The time periods for filing a notice of appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional. Because Matthews failed to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension, the Fourth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to consider the case and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views2 pages

    Werner Joseph Matthews v. Tom C. Martin, Warden/ceo, 92 F.3d 1180, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Werner Joseph Matthews appealed a district court's denial of habeas corpus relief. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Matthews filed the notice of appeal outside the 30-day period required by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and did not obtain an extension. The time periods for filing a notice of appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional. Because Matthews failed to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension, the Fourth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to consider the case and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    92 F.

    3d 1180

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation


    of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Werner Joseph MATTHEWS, Petitioner-Appellant,
    v.
    Tom C. MARTIN, Warden/CEO, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 96-6817.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted: July 23, 1996.
    Decided: August 6, 1996.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
    North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-95-550-5BR)
    Werner Joseph Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA,
    Raleigh, NC, for Appellee.
    E.D.N.C.
    APPEAL DISMISSED.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal period established by
    Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an extension of the appeal period within
    the additional thirty-day period provided by Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not
    entitled to relief under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods for filing
    notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R.App. P. 4. These periods are

    "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434


    U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229
    (1960)). The district court entered its order on April 16, 1996; Appellant's
    notice of appeal was filed at the earliest on May 17, 1996. Appellant's failure to
    note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this
    court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore deny a certificate of
    probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is
    required, we deny such a certificate, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
    oral argument 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