Jeanne M. Shobert v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 1978 quoting United States v. Robinson,…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1122
JEANNE M. SHOBERT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF
THE EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT PLAN OF USEC,
INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
TIM HANSEN,
Defendant.
No. 05-1528
JEANNE M. SHOBERT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF
THE EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT PLAN OF USEC,
INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.

-- 1 of 4 --

- 2 -
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-03-2990-8-AW)
Submitted: June 24, 2005 Decided: July 29, 2005
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
No. 05-1122 dismissed; No. 05-1528 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Barbara J. Kraft, BEINS, AXELROD, KRAFT, GLEASON & GIBSON,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Donald Lawrence Havermann, Terra
Elswick Castaldi, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, L.L.P., Washington,
D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 4 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Jeanne M. Shobert appeals the district court’s order
granting the Employee Benefits Administrative Committee of the
Employees’ Retirement Plan of USEC, Inc. (“Committee”) summary
judgment (No. 05-1122) and the district court’s order denying
Shobert’s motion for other relief requesting reconsideration of its
order denying Shobert’s motion for extension of time to file a
notice of appeal (No. 05-1528). The Committee has filed a motion
to dismiss Shobert’s appeal in No. 05-1122 for lack of jurisdiction
because the notice of appeal challenging the district court’s order
granting the Committee summary judgment was not timely filed. We
grant the Committee’s motion to dismiss No. 05-1122 and affirm the
district court’s order denying Shobert’s motion for other relief in
No. 05-1528.
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 order granting summary
judgment was entered on the docket on November 22, 2004. The

-- 3 of 4 --

- 4 -
notice of appeal was filed on January 21, 2005. Because Shobert
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension
or reopening of the appeal period, we grant the Committee’s motion
to dismiss the appeal.
Further, this court reviews the denial of a motion to
reconsider for abuse of discretion. NOW v. Operation Rescue, 47
F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir. 1995). Because Shobert’s notice of appeal
was untimely and because she failed to demonstrate excusable
neglect, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
her motion for other relief, which, like her motion for extension
of time, argued only that the time for appeal should be extended
under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s order in No. 05-1528.
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.
No. 05-1122 DISMISSED
No. 05-1528 AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --