# Brown v. Peguese

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 3, 2005 · 133 F. App'x 74

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1016296

## Case

- **Full name:** Howard G. BROWN, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. James v. PEGUESE; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 3, 2005
- **Citations:** 133 F. App'x 74
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Shedd, Duncan
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1016296

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6075

HOWARD G. BROWN, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JAMES V. PEGUESE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-03-3192-WDQ)

Submitted: May 18, 2005 Decided: June 3, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Howard G. Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Howard G. Brown, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of

appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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 appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)).

The district court’s judgment was entered on the docket

on October 6, 2004. According Brown the benefit of Fed. R. App. P.

4(c), the notice of appeal was filed on December 10, 2004. Because

Brown failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an

extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1016296. Public record. Not legal advice.