Jeffrey S. Blaney v. Edward Murray, Dir., 96 F.3d 1438 (4th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Jeffrey S. Blaney v. Edward Murray, Dir., 96 F.3d 1438 (4th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
30 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re Taylor (vaeb, 1999-10-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" In Re Taylor
Bankr. E.D. Va. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Foiles, 62 F.3d 1414 , 1995 WL 463101 at *3 (unpublished opinion). 8 .The Fourth Circuit has cited this opinion for the proposition that the "[d]isparity in earning power is a factor to be considered when determining whether an award of attorney’s fees is in the nature of alimony, maintenance, and support.” See D'Agostino v. Genovese (In re Genovese), 96 F.3d 1438 , 1996 WL 516160, at *2 (4th Cir.1996) (unpublished opinion).
cited Cited "see" Seaco and Signal v. Richardson
11th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Branch v. Ceres Corp., 29 BRBS 53, 55 (1995), aff'd mem., 96 F.3d 1438 (4th Cir.1996).
cited Cited "see" Seaco and Signal v. Richardson
11th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Branch v. Ceres Corp., 29 BRBS 53, 55 (1995), aff’d mem., 96 F.3d 1438 (4th Cir. 1996).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jeffrey S. Blaney
v.
Edward Murray, Director
96-6392.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Sep 10, 1996.
96 F.3d 1438
Unpublished

96 F.3d 1438

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Jeffrey S. BLANEY, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Edward MURRAY, Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 96-6392.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 27, 1996.
Decided Sept. 10, 1996.

Jeffrey S. Blaney, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

E.D.VA.

DISMISSED.

Before HAMILTON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

2

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 thirty 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).

3

Appellant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain either an extension or a reopening of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate 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