see also Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992) (“Rule 3’s die- tates are jurisdictional in nature, and their satisfaction is a prerequisite to appellate review.”). 44 . See D.C.App. R. 3(c)(4) ("An appeal may not be dismissed for informality of form or title of the notice of appeal, or for failure to name a party whose intent to appeal is otherwise clear from the notice.”). 45 . See D.C.App. R. 3(a)(2) (“An appellant’s failure to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for the Court of Appeals to act as it considers appropriate, including dismissal of the appeal.”); see also, e.g., Moore Energy Res., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 785 A.2d 300, 304-06 (D.C.2001) (<HOLDING>); Montgomery v. Docter, Docter & Solus, P.C.,
holding that this time requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that the requirement in rule 15a that counsel for a corporation sign a petition for review is not jurisdictional holding that the time limit for filing a petition for review of a final order of deportation is jurisdictional holding that if defendant could establish ineffective assistance of counsel in failure to file petition for review in his direct appeal then appropriate remedy would be to allow filing of petition for review out of time holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional