UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7456
MARK STEVEN STANTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RANDELL LEE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-99-763-2-MU)
Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 19, 2000
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Steven Stanton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mark Steven Stanton filed an untimely notice of appeal from
the district court’s order dismissing his petition under 28
U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) complaint. We dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of
appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "man-
datory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Correc-
tions, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson,
361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions are accorded
thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of
appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).
This appeal period may be extended under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or
reopened under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
The district court entered its order on April 27, 1999;*
Stanton's notice of appeal was filed on October 12, 1999, which was
beyond the thirty-day appeal period. His failure to note a timely
appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this
court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of his appeal.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to
*
Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
April 23, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was
entered on the docket sheet on April 27, 2000. Pursuant to Rules
58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the
date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as
the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.
Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2
proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3