Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Barber, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Donald Ray Barber's appeal of a district court order dismissing his motion for return of forfeited property. The court dismissed the appeal because Barber's notice of appeal was filed more than 60 days after the district court entered its order, missing the mandatory deadline for civil appeals where the U.S. is a party. As Barber did not request an extension or reopening of the appeal period, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-12-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-6665

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Donald Ray Barber's appeal of a district court order dismissing his motion for return of forfeited property. The court dismissed the appeal because Barber's notice of appeal was filed more than 60 days after the district court entered its order, missing the mandatory deadline for civil appeals where the U.S. is a party. As Barber did not request an extension or reopening of the appeal period, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Barber, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Donald Ray Barber's appeal of a district court order dismissing his motion for return of forfeited property. The court dismissed the appeal because Barber's notice of appeal was filed more than 60 days after the district court entered its order, missing the mandatory deadline for civil appeals where the U.S. is a party. As Barber did not request an extension or reopening of the appeal period, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 00-6665

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DONALD RAY BARBER,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-93-124)

    Submitted:

    November 22, 2000

    Decided:

    December 19, 2000

    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Donald Ray Barber, Appellant Pro Se.
    Gretchen C.F. Shappert,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Donald Ray Barber seeks to appeal the district courts order
    dismissing his motion for return of forfeited property. We dismiss
    the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellants notice of
    appeal was not timely filed.
    In

    civil

    cases

    in

    which

    the

    United

    States

    is

    party,

    litigants are accorded sixty days after the entry of the district
    courts final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.
    P. 4(a)(1), 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).
    jurisdictional.

    This appeal period is mandatory and

    Browder v. Director, Dept of Corrections, 434

    U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.
    220, 229 (1960)).
    The district courts order was entered on the docket on
    February 3, 2000.
    26, 2000.*

    Appellants notice of appeal was filed on April

    Because Appellant 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 because the

    facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-

    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 given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App. P.
    4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
    2

    rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like