Ford v. Lake View City Municipal Court ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7311
ROSSIE C. FORD, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
LAKE VIEW CITY MUNICIPAL COURT; FOURTH CIRCUIT
SOLICITORS; COMMON PLEAS COURT CLERK AND COURT
REPORTERS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-99-1249-3-13-BC)
Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 30, 1999
Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rossie C. Ford, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rossie C. Ford, Jr., seeks to appeal from the district court’s
order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We dismiss the ap-
peal for lack of jurisdiction, because Ford’s notice of appeal was
not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the dis-
trict 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 July
21, 1999. Ford’s notice of appeal was postmarked September 21 and
filed on September 22, 1999. Because Ford failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the ap-
peal period, we deny a certificate of appealability 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