US v. Gary Debenedetto, No. 15-7352 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7352 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. GARY DEBENEDETTO, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:14-hc-02172-BR) Submitted: December 15, 2015 Before GREGORY Circuit Judge. and FLOYD, Decided: Circuit Judges, December 18, 2015 and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Debenedetto, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Dee Dannels, FMC BUTNER FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER, Butner, North Carolina, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas Gray Walker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gary Debenedetto seeks to appeal the district court’s order civilly committing him to the care and custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2012). 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 60 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). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007); see 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241-47 (2012) (setting forth procedures for involuntary civil commitment of federal detainees). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on November 6, 2014. 2015. * The notice of appeal was filed on August 20, Because Debenedetto failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 2 period, we dismiss the appeal. bail or release pending We deny Debenedetto’s motion for appeal and petition for a writ of mandamus and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
