By contrast, nonjurisdictional rules and deadlines may be extended or waived.”); see also Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 211-13, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007); Smith v. United States, 984 A.2d 196, 200-01 (D.C.2009). It should be noted that even statutory restrictions governing the cases courts may hear are not to be deemed jurisdictional unless the intent of the legislature is clear. See Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr., — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 817, 824, 184 L.Ed.2d 627 (2013). 38 . Super. Ct. Civ. R. 82. 39 . D.C.Code § 2-510(a) (2012 Repl.). 40 . See D.C.App. R. 15(a)(2); Capitol Hill Restoration Soc. v. Mayor’s Agent for Historic Preservation, 44 A.3d 271, 277 (D.C.2012). 41 . See D.C.App. R. 3(a), (c). 42 . See Patterson v. District of Columbia, 995 A.2d 167, 170 (D.C.2010) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487
holding on appeal from a habeas corpus denial that counsel was not ineffective for failure to file a notice of appeal because of defendants escape holding that the 30day notice of appeal requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional holding that defendants failure to appeal the voluntariness of a plea constitutes waiver of the issue on subsequent appeal holding that identification of appellant in notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and that the failure to name a party in a notice to appeal constitutes a failure of that party to appeal holding that timeliness of filing of notice of appeal is a jurisdictional issue