Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Missouri, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Vincent Missouri sought to appeal a district court order denying his motion for reconsideration of a prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Missouri failed to file a timely notice of appeal within 60 days of the district court's order as required by Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B). Although Missouri claimed he did not receive a copy of the district court order, the Court of Appeals had previously notified him of the order, but he still failed to timely file to extend or reopen the appeal period under Rules 4(a)(5) or 4

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-01-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-7802

    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 Vincent Missouri sought to appeal a district court order denying his motion for reconsideration of a prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Missouri failed to file a timely notice of appeal within 60 days of the district court's order as required by Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B). Although Missouri claimed he did not receive a copy of the district court order, the Court of Appeals had previously notified him of the order, but he still failed to timely file to extend or reopen the appeal period under Rules 4(a)(5) or 4

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Missouri, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Vincent Missouri sought to appeal a district court order denying his motion for reconsideration of a prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Missouri failed to file a timely notice of appeal within 60 days of the district court's order as required by Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B). Although Missouri claimed he did not receive a copy of the district court order, the Court of Appeals had previously notified him of the order, but he still failed to timely file to extend or reopen the appeal period under Rules 4(a)(5) or 4

    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. 06-7802

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    VINCENT MISSOURI,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville.
    Margaret B. Seymour, District
    Judge. (6:00-cr-00498; 6:05-cv-01598-MBS)

    Submitted:

    January 12, 2007

    Decided:

    January 26, 2007

    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Vincent Missouri, Appellant Pro Se.


    Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr.,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Vincent Missouri seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying his motion for reconsideration of a prior order
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000) motion.

    We dismiss

    the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal


    was not timely filed.
    Parties in a civil action in which the United States is
    a party have sixty days following a final order in which to file a
    notice of appeal, 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
    May 26, 2006.

    The notice of appeal was filed on October 19, 2006.

    Because Missouri 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

    Missouri claims that he was not forwarded a copy of the


    district courts order. However, this court previously denied a
    petition for writ of mandamus filed by Missouri as moot, noting
    that the district court had denied the motion for reconsideration
    in May 2006.
    In re: Missouri, No. 06-7090 (4th Cir. July 28,
    2006). Missouri was thereby put on notice of the district courts
    order and did not file a timely motion to extend or reopen the
    appeal period pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a).
    - 2 -

    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