Scribd
Upload
19 views2 pages

In Re Carl E. Snyder, Debtor. Roy D. Hansen Mortgage Company v. Carl E. Snyder, 81 F.3d 151, 4th Cir. (1996)

The court dismissed an appeal because the appellant filed the notice of appeal outside the 30-day period established by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The appellant failed to obtain an extension of time to file the appeal within an additional 30-day period as allowed by the Rules. The time periods for filing an appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional, so the court did not have authority to consider an untimely appeal.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
19 views2 pages

In Re Carl E. Snyder, Debtor. Roy D. Hansen Mortgage Company v. Carl E. Snyder, 81 F.3d 151, 4th Cir. (1996)

The court dismissed an appeal because the appellant filed the notice of appeal outside the 30-day period established by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The appellant failed to obtain an extension of time to file the appeal within an additional 30-day period as allowed by the Rules. The time periods for filing an appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional, so the court did not have authority to consider an untimely appeal.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

81 F.

3d 151

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation


of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
Circuit.
IN RE Carl E. SNYDER, Debtor.
ROY D. HANSEN MORTGAGE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Carl E. SNYDER, Defendant--Appellee.
No. 95-1194.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


Submitted: March 21, 1996
Decided: March 29, 1996

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-4150-JFM,
BK-91-44784)
Jon Alexander Hoppe, HAFEY & HOPPE, L.L.C., Rockville, Maryland,
for Appellant.
Carl E. Snyder, Appellee Pro Se.
D.Md.
DISMISSED.
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:

Appellant 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 is 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."* The
district court entered its order on December 28, 1994; Appellant's notice of
appeal was filed on January 30, 1995. Appellant's 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 deny the Appellee's motion to
submit the case on briefs as moot and 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

Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting
United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960))

You might also like