Setterberg v. Hunt ( 1996 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7750
BRUCE A. SETTERBERG; EUGENIO DUQUESNE; WILLIAM
A. KINSLER; CHARLES ARTHUR BENNETT,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
RICKY A. PIERCE; JAMES D. HABURN, SR.,
Plaintiffs,
versus
JIM HUNT, Governor; NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL
ASSEMBLY; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF COR-
RECTIONS; NORTH CAROLINA PAROLE COMMISSION;
NORTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION; W. EARL BRITT;
MALCOLM J. HOWARD; TERRENCE W. BOYLE; W. K.
JONES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District
Judge. (CA-95-505-5-F)
Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996
Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bruce A. Setterberg, Eugenio Duquesne, William A. Kinsler, Charles
Arthur Bennett, Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellants 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 are 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 September 8, 1995; Appellants' notice of
appeal was filed on October 31, 1995. Appellants' 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 dismiss the appeal. In light of the disposition of this
appeal, we deny Appellants' motions to file an amended complaint,
for discovery, to appoint counsel, for setting pretrial release
conditions, application for writs of appearance, motion for relief
from judgment, and request for service. 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
3