UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7717
RICHARD DAVIS HOUSTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
EDDIE PEARSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 03-7911
RICHARD DAVIS HOUSTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
EDDIE PEARSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-404-AM)
Submitted: April 19, 2004 Decided: April 28, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Davis Houston, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Kathleen Beatty
Martin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Richard Davis Houston seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2000). We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction
because Appellant’s notices of appeal were not timely filed.
In civil cases such as the present one, 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, issued August 26, 2003, was
entered on the docket by the clerk on September 16, 2003.
Appellant’s first notice of appeal, designated No. 03-7717, was
filed October 17, 2003, one day out of time. Appellant’s second
notice of appeal, apparently filed in response to the judgment of
September 16 that entered the August order on the docket, was filed
on November 9, 2003. This second appeal, designated No. 03-7911,
was also untimely. 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 appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
- 3 -
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 4 -