Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07440/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07440-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Merrill Everett Fields
Appellant
Warden
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7440

MERRILL EVERETT FIELDS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (8:06-cv02865-AMD)

Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 21, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Merrill Everett Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Michael O’Connor Doyle,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7440 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/21/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Merrill Everett Fields seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the

notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” 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 order was entered on the docket on

May 17, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on September 24,

2007. Because Fields 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 in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 07-7440 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/21/2007 Pg: 2 of 2