Static Control Components, Inc v. Reza Ahmadi, No. 09-1082 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1082 STATIC CONTROL COMPONENTS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. REZA H. AHMADI; INTELLIGENT OFFICE PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David Schroeder, District Judge. (1:07-cv-00281-TDS-RAE) Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 23, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reza H. Ahmadi, Appellant Pro Se. Sanford, North Carolina, for Appellee. William L. London, III, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Reza H. Ahmadi and his corporation Intelligent Office Products, Inc. seek to appeal the district court s final order entering a default judgment against them. 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). is mandatory and jurisdictional. Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) This appeal period Browder v. Dir., Dep t of (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court s order was entered on the docket on December 4, 2008. 6, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on January Because Appellants 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

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.