Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Kenneth Eugene Barron sought to appeal the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Barron's notice of appeal was not timely filed within the mandatory 60-day period. While Barron claimed he filed the notice of appeal on November 3, 1999, the district court had entered its order dismissing the § 2255 motion on June 30, 1999, more than 60 days prior. Therefore, 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. Barron, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Kenneth Eugene Barron sought to appeal the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Barron's notice of appeal was not timely filed within the mandatory 60-day period. While Barron claimed he filed the notice of appeal on November 3, 1999, the district court had entered its order dismissing the § 2255 motion on June 30, 1999, more than 60 days prior. Therefore, the court concluded it did not have jurisdiction over the untimely appeal and dismissed the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-03-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-7726

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Kenneth Eugene Barron sought to appeal the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Barron's notice of appeal was not timely filed within the mandatory 60-day period. While Barron claimed he filed the notice of appeal on November 3, 1999, the district court had entered its order dismissing the § 2255 motion on June 30, 1999, more than 60 days prior. Therefore, 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
    10 views3 pages

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Kenneth Eugene Barron sought to appeal the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion. The appeals court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Barron's notice of appeal was not timely filed within the mandatory 60-day period. While Barron claimed he filed the notice of appeal on November 3, 1999, the district court had entered its order dismissing the § 2255 motion on June 30, 1999, more than 60 days prior. Therefore, 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. 99-7726

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    KENNETH EUGENE BARRON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
    (CR-94-306-WMN, CA-96-3620-WMN)

    Submitted:

    March 9, 2000

    Decided:

    March 15, 2000

    Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Kenneth Eugene Barron, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Clayton White,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Kenneth Eugene Barron seeks to appeal the district courts
    order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 1999) motion.
    We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellants
    notice of appeal was not timely filed.
    Parties are accorded sixty days with the United States as a
    party after entry of the district courts final judgment or order
    to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(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).

    This ap-

    peal period is mandatory and jurisdictional. 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 June
    30, 1999.
    1999.*

    Barrons notice of appeal was filed on November 3,

    Because Barron 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 record reveals that Barron could not have given his
    notice of appeal to prison officials any earlier than November 3,
    1999. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
    2

    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument


    would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like