Scott v. Corcoran

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6932 CHARLES ALBERT SCOTT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 97-3587-DKC) Submitted: September 28, 1999 Decided: November 3, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Albert Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles Albert Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Scott’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 November 12, 1997. Scott’s notice of appeal was filed on June 28, 1999.* Because Scott 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 legal contentions are * 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 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3