Barron v. Angelone ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6136
LYNARD E. BARRON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-99-542-AM)
Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 6, 2000
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lynard E. Barron, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lynard E. Barron seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because Barron’s notice of appeal was not timely
filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district
court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(1), 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 Corrections, 434
U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.
220, 229 (1960)).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on June
3, 1999. Barron’s notice of appeal was dated July 10, 1999,
thirty-seven days later.* Because Barron failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the
appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
*
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 given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App.
P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3