Court Opinion

ID: 990256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:18:23.110345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:32.853988
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 96-1029

ARTHUR L. BOWMAN,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

MARVIN T. RUNYON, JR., Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service Agency, Washing-
ton, DC,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-94-3265-6-20AK)

Submitted:   August 15, 1996               Decided:   August 20, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur L. Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. Janet E. Smith, UNITED STATES
POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C.; Lee Ellis Berlinsky, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant noted this appeal outside the sixty-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 its order on October 25, 1995; Appellant's notice of

appeal was filed on January 2, 1996. 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 dis-

miss 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

                                2