Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Roy D Hansen MTG Co v. Snyder, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal. The appellant noted the appeal outside the 30-day period established by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and did not obtain an extension. As such, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the case since the time periods for filing an appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional. The district court entered its order on December 28, 1994 but the appellant did not file the notice of appeal until January 30, 1995. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-03-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 95-1194

    Original Title

    Roy D Hansen Mtg Co v. Snyder, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal. The appellant noted the appeal outside the 30-day period established by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and did not obtain an extension. As such, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the case since the time periods for filing an appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional. The district court entered its order on December 28, 1994 but the appellant did not file the notice of appeal until January 30, 1995. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views3 pages

    Roy D Hansen MTG Co v. Snyder, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal. The appellant noted the appeal outside the 30-day period established by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and did not obtain an extension. As such, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the case since the time periods for filing an appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional. The district court entered its order on December 28, 1994 but the appellant did not file the notice of appeal until January 30, 1995. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 95-1194

    In Re: CARL E. SNYDER,


    Debtor.
    _________________________
    ROY D. HANSEN MORTGAGE COMPANY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    CARL E. SNYDER,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
    (CA-93-4150-JFM, BK-91-44784)
    Submitted:

    March 21, 1996

    Decided:

    March 29, 1996

    Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jon Alexander Hoppe, HAFEY & HOPPE, L.L.C., Rockville, Maryland,
    for Appellant. Carl E. Snyder, Appellee Pro Se.
    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 established
    by FED. R. APP. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional."* The
    district court entered its order on December 28, 1994; Appellant's
    notice of appeal was filed on January 30, 1995. 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 the Appellee's motion to submit the case on briefs
    as moot and dismiss 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

    Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264


    (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229
    (1960)).
    3

    You might also like