UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6210
WILLIAM A. FISHER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; PAGE TRUE, Warden
Sussex I Prison,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-01-811-3)
Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002
Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William A. Fisher, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William A. Fisher seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001)
petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because
Appellant’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
December 6, 2001. Fisher’s notice of appeal was filed on
January 9, 2002.* Because Fisher failed to file a timely notice of
appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,
we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Fisher’s motion
requesting an evidentiary hearing, release from prison, a new bond
hearing, a new trial and a dismissal of the charges. We dispense
*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on Fisher’s 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
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3