Mills v. Angelone ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7515
PRESTON M. MILLS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Depart-
ment of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-00-687)
Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 22, 2000
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Preston M. Mills, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Preston M. Mills appeals the district court’s order dismissing
without prejudice his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000)
petition for failing to comply with Rule 2(c), Rules Governing
§ 2254 Petitions. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
because Mills’ 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, 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 jurisdic-
tional.” 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
October 20, 1999. Mills’ notice of appeal was filed on October 19,
2000. Because Mills failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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