UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6930
RAYMOND CHARLES CREASON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; JOSEPH
PICKELSIMER,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-98-760-1)
Submitted: December 8, 2000 Decided: January 5, 2001
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Charles Creason, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellees
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Charles Creason appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) pe-
tition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because
Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.
The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by
Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “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)). Parties to civil actions are accorded thirty days after
entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the
appeal period are when the district court extends the time to
appeal upon a motion made within thirty days of the appeal period,
see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period upon a
motion filed within 180 days of the judgment, or within seven days
of the receipt of notice, whichever is earlier, see Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(6).
The district court entered its order on October 5, 1999.
Appellant filed his notice of appeal on April 19, 2000, which is
beyond both the thirty-day appeal period and the 180-day period
within which to move the district court to reopen the appeal
period. Because Appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal
or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
2
deny his motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3