Douglas Brewbaker v. US, No. 08-6720 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6720 DOUGLAS HAYTH BREWBAKER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (2:06-cv-00016-REM-JSK) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 17, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Hayth Brewbaker, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Gordon McGonigal, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Douglas Hayth Brewbaker seeks to appeal the district court s order adopting the magistrate judge s report and recommendation and dismissing his claim that restitution should be deferred until he is on supervised release. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court s final judgment or order, 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). appeal period is mandatory and jurisdictional. This Browder v. Dir., 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 order was entered on the docket on September 21, 2006. The notice of appeal appears to have been postmarked April 25, 2008, and was filed on May 1, 2008. * Because Brewbaker failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to * For the appearing on been properly court. Fed. (1988). purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date the postmark is the earliest date it could have delivered to prison officials for mailing to the R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 2 obtain an extension dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before or reopening of the appeal period, we We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
