Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Smith, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Kenyatta Dearron Smith's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The district court had denied the motion on July 27, 2009 but Smith did not file his notice of appeal until December 29, 2009, well past the 60 day deadline. As the deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional, the appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-03-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 106122

    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 Kenyatta Dearron Smith's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The district court had denied the motion on July 27, 2009 but Smith did not file his notice of appeal until December 29, 2009, well past the 60 day deadline. As the deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional, the appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Smith, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Kenyatta Dearron Smith's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The district court had denied the motion on July 27, 2009 but Smith did not file his notice of appeal until December 29, 2009, well past the 60 day deadline. As the deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional, the appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 10-6122

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    KENYATTA DEARRON SMITH,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.
    Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
    (4:05-cr-00471-TLW-1; 4:08-cv-70038-TLW)

    Submitted:

    March 16, 2010

    Decided:

    March 24, 2010

    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Kenyatta Dearron Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Kenyatta Dearron Smith seeks to appeal the district
    courts

    order

    dismissing

    (West Supp. 2009) motion.

    as

    untimely

    his

    28

    U.S.C.A.

    2255

    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)).
    The district courts order was entered on the docket
    on July 27, 2009.
    29, 2009. *

    The notice of appeal was filed on December

    Because Smith 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

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented


    *

    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).

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

    You might also like