Green v. Chester , 53 F. App'x 266 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7091
RICARDO ST. AUBIN GREEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DAVID CHESTER,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-00-144-5-BO)
Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 19, 2002
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Ricardo St. Aubin Green, Appellant Pro Se. Diane Appleton Reeves,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Ricardo St. Aubin Green, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We dismiss the appeal of the district
court’s denial of Green’s § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction
because Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed as to
that order.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the 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 denying Green’s § 2254 petition was
entered on the docket on April 10, 2001. Appellant’s notice of
appeal was filed on April 28, 2002. Because Appellant 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.
Green’s notice of appeal is timely, however, as to the
district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to
reconsider. We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse
3
of discretion. NOW v. Operation Rescue, 47 F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir.
1995). Because Green’s motion stated no viable ground for relief
under the rule, we find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we
affirm the ruling of the district court. 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 IN PART
AND AFFIRMED IN PART
4