UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7613
WINSTON WILKINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
THEODIS BECK,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-99-496-5-O)
Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Winston Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Winston Wilkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001)
petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because
Appellant’s notice was not timely filed.
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 “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)).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
February 14, 2000. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on July
16, 2001.* 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. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
*
For the purpose of this appeal we assume that the date ap-
pearing 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
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3