Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Brown, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Frederick George Brown filed an untimely appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because Brown missed the 60-day deadline to file an appeal. He did not request an extension of the deadline or move to reopen the appeal period. As the notice of appeal was filed beyond the mandatory deadline, the Court of Appeals was required to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-09-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 98-6491

    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 in which Frederick George Brown filed an untimely appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because Brown missed the 60-day deadline to file an appeal. He did not request an extension of the deadline or move to reopen the appeal period. As the notice of appeal was filed beyond the mandatory deadline, the Court of Appeals was required to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Brown, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Frederick George Brown filed an untimely appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because Brown missed the 60-day deadline to file an appeal. He did not request an extension of the deadline or move to reopen the appeal period. As the notice of appeal was filed beyond the mandatory deadline, the Court of Appeals was required to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 98-6491

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    FREDERICK GEORGE BROWN, a/k/a Toto-Roy, a/k/a
    Fox,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District
    Judge. (CR-89-95-B, CA-97-4112-B)

    Submitted:

    September 10, 1998

    Decided:

    September 24, 1998

    Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Frederick George Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Miriam Aroni Krinsky,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for
    lack of jurisdiction. 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, Dept of Corrections, 434
    U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.
    220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have sixty days within
    which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions
    to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time
    to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal
    period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
    The district court entered its order on Jan. 13, 1998; Appellants notice of appeal was filed on Mar. 30, 1998, which is beyond
    the sixty-day appeal period. Appellants failure to note a timely
    appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this
    court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellants
    appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability 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