United States v. Van Deusen

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-2072
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
THOMAS JAMES VAN DEUSEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-97-952-6-20)
Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 18, 1998
Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas James Van Deusen, Appellant Pro Se. Henry Douglas Knight,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Thomas James Van Deusen filed an untimely notice of appeal. We
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing
notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods
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)). Parties to civil actions have
sixty days within which to file in the district court notices of
appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The
only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court
extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens
the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
The district court entered its order on January 21, 1998;
Van Deusen’s notice of appeal was filed on July 17, 1998, which is
beyond the sixty-day appeal period. Van Deusen’s failure to note a
timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves
this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of
Van Deusen’s appeal. We therefore 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
2