0% found this document useful (0 votes)
41 views3 pagesUnited States v. Lineberry, 4th Cir. (2009)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Christopher Lineberry's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The district court had dismissed the motion on May 16, 2008. Lineberry did not file his notice of appeal until November 21, 2008, well past the 60-day deadline. As the deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction since the notice of appeal was not timely filed and Lineberry did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period.
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsCopyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
41 views3 pagesUnited States v. Lineberry, 4th Cir. (2009)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Christopher Lineberry's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The district court had dismissed the motion on May 16, 2008. Lineberry did not file his notice of appeal until November 21, 2008, well past the 60-day deadline. As the deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction since the notice of appeal was not timely filed and Lineberry did not obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period.
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsCopyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8486
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LINEBERRY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
James P. Jones, Chief
District Judge.
(1:02-cr-00044-jpj-mfu-1; 1:08-cv-80045-jpjmfu)
Submitted:
April 23, 2009
Decided:
May 4, 2009
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Lineberry, Appellant Pro Se.
Steven Randall
Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher
courts
order
Lineberry
dismissing
his
2008) motion as untimely.
seeks
28
to
U.S.C.A.
appeal
2255
the
district
(West
Supp.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a
party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty
days after the entry of the district courts final judgment or
order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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).
appeal period is mandatory and jurisdictional.
This
Browder v.
Dir., Dept of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United
States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).
Accord Bowles v.
Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007).
The district courts order was entered on the docket
on May 16, 2008.
2008.
The notice of appeal was filed on November 21,
Because Lineberry 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
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to
the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988).
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
