Court Opinion

ID: 705290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-04-17 06:02:35+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:35:22.578431
License: Public Domain

67 F.3d 293NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
William Venoy BROADNAX, Petitioner-Appellant,v.William L. SMITH;  Attorney General of the State ofMaryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 95-6302.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 24, 1995.Decided Sept. 13, 1995.

William Venoy Broadnax, Appellant pro se.  John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

1
Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal period established by Fed.  R.App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day period provided by Fed.  R.App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to relief under Fed.  R.App. P. 4(a)(6).  The time periods established by Fed.  R.App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional."  Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).  The district court entered an order denying Appellant's 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) habeas petition on March 4, 1994 and an order denying Appellant's motion to reconsider the denial of his habeas petition on March 31, 1994;  Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on December 19, 1994.  Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider this case.  We therefore deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal.  We also deny Appellant's motion requesting an extension of time to file an 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