Court Opinion

ID: 990089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:16:09.382696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:43.437933
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 96-6817

WERNER JOSEPH MATTHEWS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

TOM C. MARTIN, Warden/CEO,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh.     W. Earl Britt, District
Judge. (CA-95-550-5-BR)

Submitted:   July 23, 1996                 Decided:   August 6, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Werner Joseph Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,
North 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 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 for filing
notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods

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 April 16, 1996; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed at

the earliest on May 17, 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 deny a

certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a cer-

tificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate,
and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

                                                         DISMISSED

                                2