Hinton v. US
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
FRANK LATHAN HINTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; US MARSHAL'S OFFICE; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:05-cv-00453-RBS)
Submitted: July 20, 2006
Decided: July 26, 2006
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank Lathan Hinton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Frank Lathan Hinton seeks to appeal the district court's judgment dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition and the order denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 court's 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). "mandatory and jurisdictional." This appeal period is
Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr.,
434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court's judgment was entered September 13, 2006, and the order denying reconsideration was entered September 20, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on February 3, 2006.*
Because Hinton 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
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). - 2 -
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?