UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6159
RENARD SAVAGE-BEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
EDDIE PEARSON, Warden, Sussex State II Prison,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-01-1126-AM)
Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002
Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Renard Savage-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Renard Savage-Bey appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994).
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Savage-Bey’s
notice of appeal 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
“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
August 29, 2001. Savage-Bey’s notice of appeal was filed on
January 17, 2002. Because Savage-Bey 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
*
In his informal brief, Savage-Bey states that he also seeks
to appeal the district court’s January 15, 2002, order denying his
motion for reconsideration and his motion to reopen the time to
file an appeal. Although Savage-Bey’s informal brief could be
construed as a notice of appeal, Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248
(1992), the brief was filed beyond the applicable thirty-day appeal
period. Fed. R. App. 4(a)(1). Thus, we do not have jurisdiction
to review the order and express no opinion as to its validity.
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3