Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Merritt, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    Robert Merritt sought to appeal his sentencing judgment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Merritt's notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties have 60 days after the district court's final judgment to note an appeal. The district court entered its judgment on October 30, 1995, but Merritt did not file his notice of appeal until October 25, 1999, well beyond the 60 day deadline. The appeals court also denied Merritt's motion to appeal the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion as untimely.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-03-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7541

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Robert Merritt sought to appeal his sentencing judgment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Merritt's notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties have 60 days after the district court's final judgment to note an appeal. The district court entered its judgment on October 30, 1995, but Merritt did not file his notice of appeal until October 25, 1999, well beyond the 60 day deadline. The appeals court also denied Merritt's motion to appeal the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion as untimely.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Merritt, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Robert Merritt sought to appeal his sentencing judgment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Merritt's notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties have 60 days after the district court's final judgment to note an appeal. The district court entered its judgment on October 30, 1995, but Merritt did not file his notice of appeal until October 25, 1999, well beyond the 60 day deadline. The appeals court also denied Merritt's motion to appeal the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion as untimely.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-7541

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ROBERT J. MERRITT,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR95-167-S, CA-98-321-S, CA-97-3672-S)

    Submitted:

    March 9, 2000

    Decided:

    March 15, 2000

    Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Robert J. Merritt, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen OConnell Gavin,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert J. Merritt seeks to appeal the district courts final
    sentencing judgment.

    We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdic-

    tion because Merritts notice of appeal was not timely filed.


    Parties are accorded sixty days after entry of the district
    courts final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.
    P. 4(b)(1), 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).
    jurisdictional.

    This appeal period is mandatory and

    Browder v. Director, Dept of Corrections, 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 October 30, 1995.
    1999.

    Merritts notice of appeal was filed on October 25,

    Because Merritt failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

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

    We deny Merritts motion for transcript at gov-

    ernment expense.

    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

    To the extent Merritt seeks to appeal the district courts


    denial of his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), entered on March 16, 1999, we find that such appeal also is untimely.
    2

    You might also like