UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1870

TRANSITION, INCORPORATED; JAMES W. TRIPLETT;

JANET C. TRIPLETT; WILLIAM S. BELL,

Plaintiff - Appellees,

versus

THOMAS W. HOFLER, JR., individually and as an

officer of Freedom Financial Company, L.L.C.,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

CLYDE AUSTIN, individually and as an officer

of International Financial Opportunities and

other associated entities; LAMONT KNIGHT,

individually and as officer of ADAR,

Incorporated; ADAR, INCORPORATED; RICHARD

HERTZ, individually and as an officer of

Moredoe, Incorporated; MOREDOE, INCORPORATED;

FREEDOM FINANCIAL COMPANY, L.L.C.; KEITH

HIGHSMITH, individually and as an agent of

Freedom Financial Company, L.L.C.,

Defendants.
2

No. 03-1871

TRANSITION, INCORPORATED; JAMES W. TRIPLETT;

JANET C. TRIPLETT; WILLIAM S. BELL,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

versus

LAMONT KNIGHT, individually and as officer of

ADAR, Incorporated,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

CLYDE AUSTIN, individually and as an officer

of International Financial Opportunities and

other associated entities; ADAR, INCORPORATED;

RICHARD HERTZ, individually and as an officer

of Moredoe, Incorporated; MOREDOE,

INCORPORATED; THOMAS W. HOFLER, JR.,

individually and as an officer of Freedom

Financial Company, L.L.C.; FREEDOM FINANCIAL

COMPANY, L.L.C.; KEITH HIGHSMITH, individually

and as an agent of Freedom Financial Company,

L.L.C.,

Defendants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-01-103-3)

Submitted: October 8, 2003 Decided: October 29, 2003
3

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Thomas W. Hofler, Jr., Lamont Knight, Appellants Pro Se. James

Broome Thorsen, Craig Juraj Curwood, THORSEN & SCHER, L.L.P.,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
4

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Thomas W. Hofler, Jr., and

Lamont Knight appeal the June 12, 2003, district court order

denying their motions to reconsider. Knight also appeals from the

March 15, 2002, district court judgment. We affirm in part and

dismiss in part.

We have reviewed the record and the June 12, 2003, district

court order and find the district court did not abuse its

discretion denying the motions to reconsider. Accordingly, we

affirm. We dismiss as untimely Knight’s appeal from the March 15,

2002, order.

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. Director, 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 March

15, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on July 10, 2003. 

Accordingly, because Knight failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,

we dismiss his appeal from the March 15, 2002, order. As for
5

Hofler’s and Knight’s appeals from the district court’s order

denying the motion to reconsider, we affirm. We deny Hofler’s

motion to clarify and the motions by Hofler and Knight for a copy

of the transcript produced at government expense. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART