Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. Nadine Sharise Horton. The court dismissed Horton's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because her notice of appeal was not timely filed within the mandatory 60-day period. The district court had denied Horton's motion for a certificate of appealability on May 29, 1998, but Horton did not file her notice of appeal until October 22, 1999, well beyond the 60-day deadline. As such, the court concluded it did not have jurisdiction over the untimely appeal and dismissed the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    27 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. Nadine Sharise Horton. The court dismissed Horton's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because her notice of appeal was not timely filed within the mandatory 60-day period. The district court had denied Horton's motion for a certificate of appealability on May 29, 1998, but Horton did not file her notice of appeal until October 22, 1999, well beyond the 60-day deadline. As such, the court concluded it did not have jurisdiction over the untimely appeal and dismissed the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-03-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7611

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. Nadine Sharise Horton. The court dismissed Horton's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because her notice of appeal was not timely filed within the mandatory 60-day period. The district court had denied Horton's motion for a certificate of appealability on May 29, 1998, but Horton did not file her notice of appeal until October 22, 1999, well beyond the 60-day deadline. As such, the court concluded it did not have jurisdiction over the untimely appeal and dismissed the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    27 views3 pages

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of United States v. Nadine Sharise Horton. The court dismissed Horton's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because her notice of appeal was not timely filed within the mandatory 60-day period. The district court had denied Horton's motion for a certificate of appealability on May 29, 1998, but Horton did not file her notice of appeal until October 22, 1999, well beyond the 60-day deadline. As such, the court concluded it did not have jurisdiction over the untimely appeal and dismissed the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-7611

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    NADINE SHARISE HORTON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
    W. Earl Britt, Senior
    District Judge. (CR-92-28, CA-99-90-7-BR)

    Submitted:

    March 23, 2000

    Decided:

    March 30, 2000

    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Nadine Sharise Horton, Appellant Pro Se. David Paul Folmar, Jr.,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Nadine S. Horton seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying her motion for certificate of appealability.

    We dismiss

    the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Hortons notice of appeal was not timely filed.
    Parties are accorded sixty days after entry of the district
    courts final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.
    P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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.

    The 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 May
    29, 1998.
    1999.*

    Hortons notice of appeal was filed on October 22,

    Because Horton failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

    to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny


    a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

    The notice of appeal filed in this court on October 22,


    1999, refers to a notice of appeal of July 19, 1999 (possibly
    meaning 1998). Neither this court nor the district court has any
    record of such a notice of appeal.
    2

    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument


    would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like