UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1425
JAMES J. HAYES, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; THOMAS BOOTS, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
CROWN CENTRAL LLC; MICHAEL F. DACEY; STANLEY
A. HOFFBERGER; BARRY L. MILLER; HENRY A.
ROSENBERG, JR.; FRANK B. ROSENBERG; JOHN E.
WHEELER, JR.; JACK AFRICK;
HAROLD RIDLEY; CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON
CORPORATION; ROSEMORE, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 04-1505
JAMES J. HAYES, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; THOMAS BOOTS, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
CROWN CENTRAL LLC; MICHAEL F. DACEY; STANLEY
A. HOFFBERGER; BARRY L. MILLER; HENRY A.
ROSENBERG, JR.; FRANK B. ROSENBERG; JOHN E.
WHEELER, JR.; JACK AFRICK; HAROLD RIDLEY;
CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON CORPORATION;
ROSEMORE, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 04-1709
JAMES J. HAYES, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; THOMAS BOOTS, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
CROWN CENTRAL LLC; MICHAEL F. DACEY; STANLEY
A. HOFFBERGER; BARRY L. MILLER; HENRY A.
ROSENBERG, JR.; FRANK B. ROSENBERG; JOHN E.
WHEELER, JR.; JACK AFRICK;
HAROLD RIDLEY; CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON
CORPORATION; ROSEMORE, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-122; CA-02-122-A)
Submitted: February 23, 2005 Decided: May 11, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
No. 04-1709 affirmed; Nos. 04-1425 and 04-1505 dismissed by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
- 2 -
Timothy D. Battin, Ian Otto, STRAUS & BOIES, LLP, Fairfax,
Virginia; Edward M. Selfe, John F. Goodman, BRADLEY ARANT ROSE &
WHITE LLP, Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellants. Anne Marie
Whittemore, Elizabeth F. Edwards, Brian E. Pumphrey, MCGUIREWOODS
LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
James Hayes and Thomas Boots (“Appellants”) appeal from
the district court’s orders granting a motion filed pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), by Crown Central Petroleum Corp. and its
directors, financial advisor, and majority shareholder
(“Appellees”) in this civil action alleging violations of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (Nos. 04-1425 and 04-1505).
Appellants also appeal from the district court’s order rejecting
the magistrate judge’s decision and denying Appellants’ motion to
extend the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)
(No. 04-1709). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
In No. 04-1709, Appellants assert that the district court
applied an incorrect standard of review when considering the
propriety of the magistrate judge’s decision and that the court
abused its discretion in denying their motion to extend the appeal
period. We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint
appendix, and the materials filed by the parties pursuant to Fed.
R. App. P. 28(j). We conclude that the district court applied the
correct standard of review and did not abuse its discretion in
finding that Appellants failed to demonstrate excusable neglect
warranting an extension of the appeal period. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hayes v.
Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., No. CA-02-122-A (E.D. Va. May 25,
2004).
- 4 -
Turning to the appeals in Nos. 04-1425 and 04-1505, we
may now consider Appellees’ motion to dismiss these appeals for
lack of jurisdiction. We previously deferred action on Appellees’
motion pending our consideration of the appeal in No. 04-1709.
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. 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 judgment granting Appellees’ Rule
12(b)(6) motion was entered on the docket on February 12, 2004; the
thirty-day appeal period expired on March 15, 2004.* The notices
of appeal were filed on April 5 and 19, 2004. Because Appellants
failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension
or reopening of the appeal period, we grant Appellees’ motion to
dismiss and dismiss the appeals in Nos. 04-1425 and 04-1505 for
lack of jurisdiction.
*
The thirtieth day fell on Saturday, March 13, 2004.
Appellants therefore had until Monday, March 15, to timely file a
notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a).
- 5 -
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. 04-1709 AFFIRMED
Nos. 04-1425 and 04-1505 DISMISSED
- 6 -