Ballard v. Tamojira Inc ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                            UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 96-1745
    DOUGLAS E. BALLARD,
    Claimant - Appellant,
    versus
    TAMOJIRA, INCORPORATED,
    Debtor - Appellee,
    and
    COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA,
    Creditor - Appellee,
    and
    UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,
    Party in Interest - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-95-145-3, BK-94-34438-T)
    Submitted:   January 23, 1997            Decided:    January 29, 1997
    Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    2
    Douglas Early Ballard, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant.
    Gregg R. Nivala, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    3
    PER CURIAM:
    Douglas Ballard appeals from the district court's order dis-
    missing his appeal of the bankruptcy court's final decision because
    he failed to note his appeal within the ten-day period prescribed
    by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002.
    Rule 8002 is jurisdictional and requires that a notice of ap-
    peal be filed within ten days of the entry of the order from which
    the appeal is taken. Jacobson v. Nielsen, 
    932 F.2d 1272
     (8th Cir.
    1991); In re Abdallah, 
    778 F.2d 75
    , 77 (1st Cir. 1985). The ten-day
    period includes weekends and holidays. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006
    (providing that intervening Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays
    are excluded if the time period is less than eight days). Here, the
    bankruptcy court entered its final order on December 26, 1995, and
    Ballard filed his notice of appeal on January 10, 1995. Under Rule
    8002, Ballard's notice of appeal should have been filed by January
    5, 1996.
    Therefore, the district court properly dismissed his appeal
    and we affirm. 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.
    AFFIRMED
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-1745

Filed Date: 1/29/1997

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014