Payne v. Angelone ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-6642
    DARRYL ORVETT PAYNE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
    Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
    trict of Virginia, at Norfolk.    Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-99-2065-2)
    Submitted:   July 13, 2000                 Decided:   August 4, 2000
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Darryl Orvett Payne, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Darryl O. Payne seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    dismissing his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2254
     (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) peti-
    tion.   We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because
    Payne’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 Febru-
    ary 9, 2000.   Payne’s notice of appeal was filed on May 5, 2000.
    Because Payne failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain
    an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his pending
    motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appeal-
    ability, and dismiss the appeal.     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.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-6642

Filed Date: 8/4/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021